Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BLACKPOOL AND STOURBRIDGE) BILL

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Derelict Land (Reclamation)

Mr. Arthur Pearson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what schemes submitted by local councils have been approved through the Derelict Land Unit of the Welsh Office; what is the total acreage of and at present being reclaimed; and if he will give examples of what are the intended uses of such land.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): Since the Derelict Land Unit was set up in November, 1966, 27 schemes for the reclamation of some 600 acres of derelict land have been approved. About half of this land has now been reclaimed for such purposes as

industry, housing, public open space and car parks; work is in progress on the remaining 300 acres. In addition, 65 schemes are currently being considered.

Mr. Pearson: Is my hon. Friend aware that expectations of the final results of clearance are high, and that it should be a proud achievement? Can he assure the House that the additional schemes will be encouraged?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. I think we can claim a good deal of success already. The Unit has accomplished a great deal in a short period of time.

Council for Wales

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether, since the fact that only two women have been appointed to the 38 strong Council for Wales is an inadequate recognition of the contribution made by women to life in the Principality, he will increase their representation.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): My right hon. Friend made appointments to the Council on the basis of merit, not sex.

Mr. Anderson: In this matter my hon. Friend is the exception that proves the rule. Does she not agree that this puny proportion in Human Rights Year, the year, too, of the anniversary of women's suffrage, is a very poor reflection on Welsh womanhood? Will she try to ensure that this type of attitude is not repeated in the future?

Mrs. White: The two distinguished women who were appointed to the Council represent interests which are of special importance in relation to the work which the Council is expected to perform. Having myself been a "statutory" woman, I deprecate appointing members of councils simply because they happen to be women. There will be further opportunities to appoint members to the panels of the main Council.

Mr. E. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will ensure that information provided for and obtained by the Council of Wales will be available to right hon. and hon. Members of this House.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): It is not the normal


practice to supply to hon. and right hon. Members information provided for, and obtained by, advisory bodies.

Mr. Rowlands: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Minister of Technology, speaking at the annual conference of the Welsh Council of Labour, when he called for greater openness and less secrecy in government? Should not Wales set an example in this by ensuring that advisory bodies to the Government, such as the Council, should not be secretive, leaving hon. Members of this House in the dark?

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend said a lot of things at Llandudno. On this point I would say that information obtained in confidence, on that basis, must be kept confidential. If there is any other information which my hon. Friend or any other Member would like, the Welsh Office is eager to help, as is the Welsh Council.

Sir E. Boyle: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the first part of his hon. Friend's suggestion, about information provided for the Council of Wales? Would he bear in mind that it can be of interest to English Members as well as Welsh Members in trying, for example, to follow Welsh education?

Mr. Thomas: I am eager for the maximum amount of information to be made available. Of course, I will look at what my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have said.

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the immense value of the deliberations of the Welsh Council to Members of this House? Will he bear in mind that reports of the Economic Council have often ultimately fallen into the hands of Members of this House? Would he agree that there seems to be no earthly reason why they should not have been placed there in the first instance, and made public without jeopardising the work of the Council?

Mr. Thomas: I can give an assurance that all the information that can be made available without breach of confidence will be so made available.

Local Government (White Paper)

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will

announce the Government's plans for legislation to give effect to the White Paper on Local Government in Wales, Command Paper Number 3340, published in July, 1967.

Mrs. White: My right hon. Friend hopes to introduce legislation in this Parliament. Preparations are proceeding.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the hon. Lady aware that paragraph 2 of the introduction of the White Paper refers to:
… the need for early action is particularly urgent in Wales …"?
That we have not even debated the White Paper since it was produced in July, 1967, is one fact. Would the hon. Lady be prepared to go further and tell the House when we shall have legislation and when there will be a debate on it?

Mrs. White: As I am sure the hon. Members is aware, we have been very busy with consultations with the local authority associations and with representatives of all the local authorities in Wales. We have certainly not been wasting time, but Parliamentary draftsmen have now to receive instructions to proceed from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Can the Minister of State tell the House whether the Parliamentary draftsmen have reached such a stage that we can anticipate legislation next Session?

Mrs. White: No, I do not think it will be possible in the next Session.

Cwmbran New Town

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the population target for Cwmbran New Town.

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he anticipates he will announce the future population target of Cwmbran New Town.

Mr. George Thomas: I hope to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the uncertainties caused by these long delays are having a bad effect upon the morale of the staff of the New Town Corporation, and will he sympathise with the urge of the local people to get an early decision?

Mr. Thomas: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) have made very strong representations to me on this matter, and I am aware of the necessity for a speedy decision.

Prestatyn (Proposed Holiday Camp)

Mr. Birch: asked the Secretary of State for Wales why there has been a five-month delay in deciding on planning permission for Pontins' proposed holiday camp at Prestatyn; and, in view of the fact that this delay has already caused loss and may result in the enterprise being sited in England, whether he will expedite his consideration of the matter.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The decision on this application has been delayed because of the need to give careful thought to the complicated issues involved including the effect of previous decisions relating to the use of the land, the relevance of the coastal preservation policy and the adequacy of the town sewage disposal system. My right hon. Friend hopes however to announce his decision in a week or so.

Mr. Birch: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the replies given to the Prestatyn Council over a long period always suggested that the answer would be given "in a matter of days"? Is he also aware that the County Council is happy about the coastal position and that the sewerage scheme has already been approved?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of the situation but, as I have indicated, a decision is imminent and will be given quite soon.

Roads

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if, in view of the recent representation made to him that a new factory in part of the Welsh Development Area is handicapped by poor access road communications, he will consider some increase in the Welsh roads programme.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The Welsh Road Programme is increasing. Total expenditure on Welsh roads was £114 million in the four years 1964–65 to 1967–68

compared with £66 million in the four years to 1963–64. It will increase still further in future years.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that the kinds of areas to which the Secretary of State and his colleagues are trying to induce industry to move are often serviced by tortuous and inadequate roads? May it not be that even the substantial inducements available to industrialists will not suffice unless some improvement is made?

Mr. Davies: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our strategy on road improvements is designed to serve the needs of the Welsh development area and, in fact, new factories are being opened in Wales, despite our difficulties.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total expenditure on roads in Wales in the period 1965–66 to 1967–68 compared with that from 1962–63 to 1964–65.

Mr. George Thomas: From 1962–63 to 1964–65 expenditure was £63·9 million compared with £86 million from 1965–66 to 1967–68, an increase of £22·1 million.

Mr. Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Of course, all hon. Members on this side of the House are aware of the inertia shown by previous Tory Administrations in this matter, but will he assure the House that there will be no let up in these encouraging developments?

Mr. Thomas: We inherited a very serious problem, but I am determined that expenditure on these roads shall be as much as we can afford.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures that he has just given are both irrelevant and misleading unless they include the expenditure on such roads as the M50, 20 miles of which cost £6 million outside Wales, and the expenditure on such projects as the Severn Bridge?

Mr. Thomas: It is very difficult to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that we have increased substantially the expenditure on roads in Wales, and we intend to go on doing so.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value of major trunk road schemes started or


to be started in Wales in the periods 1965–66 to 1967–68 and 1968–69 to 1969–70.

Mr. George Thomas: In the three years 1965–66 to 1967–68, £9·6 million. In the two years 1968–69 to 1969–70, £27·5 million.

Mr. Hughes: The figures which my right hon. Friend has given are most encouraging, but will he bear in mind that there are no grounds for complacency, because access to the Midlands and the Home Counties is essential to the future prosperity of South Wales?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is quite right. I wish that we could spend five times as much, because the need is there. But we will spend to the utmost of our capacity.

Mr. Gower: While we are all delighted that the Minister has pledged himself to do what he can in the matter, may I ask whether he will concede that most of the roads built to date must have had some preparations during the years before he took office?

Mr. Thomas: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman in looking for a crumb of comfort, but I can assure him that this Government have had to find the money.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve road communications between southern and northern Wales.

Mr. George Thomas: These substantial plans are set out in paragraphs 54, 55, 371 and 393 of "Wales: The Way Ahead "(Cmnd. 3334).

Mr. Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that for only one-third of the cost of the new town announced in 1964 for Mid-Wales, the Government could construct a splendid spine road from Cardiff to Caernarvon via Merthyr Tydvil and Ruabon, and Wrexham, with reconstructed trunk roads running off it to the west and east?

Mr. Thomas: I am glad to note that the hon Gentleman is now aware that I have responsibility for roads in Wales. May I advise him that if he talks to his own county council in Carmarthenshire, he will find that what it is interested in is an east-west road and not a north-south read. What it is interested in, in

the north, is a road from Bangor to Chester. These communications must have priority, but of course I want to see the maximum improvement in all directions in the roads of Wales.

Mr. Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend continue to give first priority to economic matters, rather than to folklore, and insist on access to our major markets, by the M4 to London and by the Newport-Worcester trunk road to the Midlands, both of which are far more important to the economic life of Wales than any north-south links?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend has spoken wisely.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that his answer a moment ago shows a distinct change in the Government's road policy? Will he confirm that it is his opinion that east-west roads are, economically speaking, far more important than the much discussed north-south roads?

Mr. Thomas: As far as I am aware this is not a change of policy, it has been the way in which we have been spending our money. We are engaged in 27 improvements on the trunk road north to south at present, and spending a great deal of money on it, but the main emphasis in Wales, under present economic conditions, must be to improve the main roads to the west in North and South Wales.

Tourist Industry

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure closer co-operation and coordination between the Welsh Tourist Board and planning authorities in the Principality, in matters affecting the development of the tourist industry in Wales.

Mrs. White: My right hon. Friend is already encouraging close consultation between the Board and the planning authorities on these matters. A meeting was arranged by the Welsh Office last month between county planning officers in Wales and the General Manager of the Wales Tourist Board.

Mr. Gower: While it is true that this is a difficult and sometimes delicate



matter, would it not be beneficial for the planning authorities to have a much more detailed picture of the sort of aim of the Minister and of the Welsh Tourist Board with regard to future developments in tourism?

Mrs. White: They can, of course, consult the Tourist Board at any time and, in addition, the Environmental Panel of the new Welsh Council may be helpful. But in individual cases, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, my right hon. Friend has a quasi-judicial capacity on appeal and could not properly intervene.

Welsh Office (Bomb Explosion)

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a further statement on the explosion at the Welsh Office on 25th May.

Mr. George Thomas: I have nothing to add to my statement to the House on 27th May [Vol. 765, c. 1229–1234]. Questions relating to police investigations are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary.

Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning all violence against persons as well as property, including that violence for which massive and expensive preparations are made by the Government to kill and maim people and to poison and asphyxiate them—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is about an explosion in Wales.

Mr. Thomas: I welcome the tone adopted by the hon. Gentleman today. On the day after his appointment, he told The Times newspaper:
The Government does not think anyone is serious until people start blowing up things or shooting others.
It looks as though some people have taken his words rather seriously.

Mr. Abse: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest contribution that can be made to the prevention of bomb explosions of this kind would be the cessation by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) of anti-English racialist statements which breed the very atmosphere in which violence thrives?

Mr. Thomas: I believe that all those who have this anti-English hatred policy in Wales today are doing grave harm to the interests of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole and of Wales in particular.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: May we get back to the real point, which is why the Government so far have not been successful in finding any of the people responsible for explosions? Will the right hon. Gentleman make urgent representations to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary?

Mr. Thomas: While I have already said that the matter of police investigations is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with every respect to the hon. Gentleman, to ask why the Government have not caught these culprits is something of a distortion of what is happening. Surely he knows that it is a matter for the police, and the police are engaged in it.

Housing

Mr. Probert: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses were completed in Wales in 1967 in comparison with the average number completed from 1960 to 1964; and how many houses he estimates will be completed this year.

Mr. Ifor Davies: 20,158 houses were completed in 1967, which compares with an annual average of 14,486 in the years from 1960 to 1964, an increase of 39 per cent. It is too early to say how many houses will be completed this year; but my right hon. Friend is very confident that the very high record of achievement over the past few years will be continued this year.

Mr. Probert: While congratulating my hon. Friend on those excellent figures, may I ask him to take into account the fact that in Wales there are very many structurally sound houses which could be brought up to modern standards? Will he, therefore, publicise the excellent facilities announced in the Government White Paper entitled "Old Houses into New Homes"?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is taking note of the point. He is emphasising the needs of the older


housing areas in Wales. The new proposals outlined in the White Paper have been very well received.

Mr. Anderson: In view of the substantial progress to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, does the Welsh Office consider that, in the foreseeable future, the back of the housing problem in the Principality can be broken?

Mr. Davies: We look forward with confidence to achieving that result.

South Wales and Monmouthshire (Animal Trespass)

Mr. Probert: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to alleviate the effect of animal trespass on the roads and elsewhere in the valleys of South Wales.

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is aware of increasing public concern with the problems created by sheep trespass in the urban areas of South Wales and Monmouthshire; and whether he will initiate inter-Departmental discussions with a view to minimising the present nuisances and hazards.

Mr. George Thomas: I am aware of this problem, and am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the suggestions for dealing with it made at my meeting with those of my hon. Friends who came to discuss this matter on 28th May.

Mr. Probert: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the prompt attention that he gave to the deputation which met him. and while appreciating that this problem will take a long time to solve, may I ask whether, in view of the distress caused over many years to motorists, farmers, gardeners, and the animals, he will give this matter urgent consideration, possibly by setting up a working party to look at this quickly?

Mr. Thomas: I do not under-estimate the seriousness of this problem. I know that in the valleys of South Wales it is a grievous problem. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will look very seriously at his proposal for a working party, and that the discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture are proceeding apace.

Mr. Abse: Would the Secretary of State bear in mind that, complex and difficult as this problem is, if the sheep and ponies were behaving in the streets of Cardiff and London as they behaved in Blaenavon and Garndiffaigh, there would already have been urgent attention given to it? Would he note that the steps that he has already taken are looked upon with great interest by all the people of the Monmouthshire valleys?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is dealing with a serious subject and I understand his sense of concern. I will gladly bear in mind what he has said.

Industrial Sites (Register)

Mr. Tudor Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has completed his register of industrial sites in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. White: Work on the first part of the register, covering the development areas of South Wales, is virtually complete and work in the remainder, covering the rest of Wales, is in progress.
The survey has already revealed that we have available over 200 good industrial sites, ranging in size from 3 acres to 800 acres.

Welsh Rural Development

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what functions of the Welsh Rural Development Board he proposes to control directly.

Mrs. White: My right hon. Friend would propose to exercise the functions laid upon him by Part III of the Agriculture Act, 1967.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: It is always a little difficult to know what the Secretary of State's powers are in any direction. Might I ask the hon. Lady whether her right hon. Friend is aware of the intense opposition in Mid-Wales to the Rural Development Board? Will he use all his powers to cancel the whole project?

Mrs. White: I am sad to find that the hon. Member, who in other respects is quite well informed about matters in Wales, has taken the line that this Board,


which will be of very great advantage to the area, is undesirable. I can only hope that he will await the result of the public inquiry which is taking place.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Will the Minister of State kindly tell the House how much money it is proposed to spend in that part of Wales on the Rural Development Board each year?

Mrs. White: I have not the figures with me, but if my hon. Friend cares to put a Question down, I will be happy to provide them.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the hon. Lady entirely unaware of the opposition which has been very clearly shown at the inquiry at Aberystwyth?

Mrs. White: I am well aware of a great deal of misrepresentation in which unfortunately the hon. Member appears to have joined.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Text Books (Racial Discrimination)

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek powers to enable him to investigate the extent to which the content of school text books in current use encourages racial discrimination.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): No new powers would be needed to promote such an investigation, but I do not think this would be the best way of spending the limited amount of money available to us for research.

Dr. Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend note that there are some differences of opinion and that there is considerable prima facie evidence to suggest that the content of school learning is often, very subtly, to encourage an attitude of racial superiority, derived from our Empire stance? Would she have another more sympathetic look at this proposal?

Miss Bacon: The only reason I replied as I did is that we should like to concentrate our efforts on new books rather than conduct a survey of old books, which would be very clostly. It is important that new books and teaching materials should be of good quality, and

should be the right kind of books, and that teachers should be fully aware of what is available. We are doing our best, through various publications, and through State courses and so on, to bring this to the notice of teachers.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Would the right hon. Lady add that it is most undesirable in principle to tamper with school books in order to try to ensure that they represent particular political views?

Miss Bacon: I am sure that that is not what my hon. Friend was suggesting. He is anxious only that the books in schools should put forward a present-day view on these very important matters. I think that teachers are well aware of the problem and will ensure that books of the right quality are available in our schools.

Keele University (Medical School)

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether a new medical school will be established at Keele University.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): The proposals for new medical schools contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education are being urgently considered by the Government and the University Grants Committee and the other bodies concerned. I am aware of the need for more doctors, and will make a statement as soon as these consultations are completed.

Dr. Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend note that there is some urgency for an announcement by the Government of their policy towards the Royal Commission's Report on Medical Eduction? Would he note that the experiments at Keele University have aroused a good deal of admiration among both educationists and doctors?

Mr. Short: I recognise the need for urgency and the importance of this matter, especially for those concerned with planning in the hospitals and the universities.

Dr. Winstanley: In view of the known tendency for doctors to settle in practice in the areas in which they were trained, would the right hon. Gentleman recognise the desirability of establishing new


medical schools in areas in which there is an acute shortage of doctors such as those adjacent to the new University of Keele?

Mr. Short: There is a Question later about the geographical spread of medical schools. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wait for that.

Mr. Cant: While North Staffordshire, as an intermediate area, has been very grateful for the developments which the Government have allowed, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the development of a medical school at Keele would give as great a boost to the morale of the area as the issue of further industrial development certificates by the Board of Trade?

Mr. Short: I am aware that a great many right hon. and hon. Members would like new medical schools at their own local universities. But we must wait until we have consulted everybody concerned about the recommendations in the Report.

Teachers (Training and Supply)

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the National Advisory Council for the Training and Supply of Teachers will be re-activated; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: I am considering this question in the wider context of the status of the teaching profession.

Mr. Longden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. However, would he expedite his consideration, because it is a considerable time since the Council functioned?

Mr. Short: I agree. There has been a very great delay. There were difficulties with the previous Council. I hope, however, that I shall be able to make an announcement about this matter before long.

Sir E. Boyle: Would the Secretary of State give careful consideration to the possibility of setting up a council for teacher education on a wider basis than the old National Advisory Council? Many people are aware of the defects of the old Council, although it did much useful work. Many feel that the time has come

for the setting up of a council of the wider kind which I have suggested.

Mr. Short: I am aware of that and of the difficulties of the old Council, but I hope that we may set up something perhaps even wider and more comprehensive than the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Independent Junior Schools (Free Milk)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he has given to local education authorities regarding the continued supply of free milk to independent junior schools.

Miss Bacon: None, Sir.

Mr. Hunt: Would the right hon. Lady remind local education authorities that parents who send their children to independent schools are ratepayers and taxpayers in exactly the same way as everybody else and that to discriminate against them in the supply of school milk is victimisation of a most unfair and unpleasant kind?

Miss Bacon: I think that local authorities are fully aware of the position. They know that they have a duty to provide milk in maintained schools and only a power to do so in non-maintained schools. I do not think that they need reminding of that.

German Measles

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the Medical Research Council trial, which has proved the effectiveness of vaccination against measles, included information on the value of vaccination against german measles.

Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. Rubella, or german measles, is an unrelated illness, but the Council is organising a separate series of trials of rubella vaccines.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Medical Research Council take into consideration the researches done two years ago in America where they felt that they had the answer to this problem? Since this is an important factor in causing deafness, will my right hon. Friend expedite the work being done by the Medical Research Council?

Mr. Short: I am sure that the Medical Research Council is aware of the urgency of this matter. But there is a particular hazard for women in the early stages of pregnancy. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of that. The matter must be treated carefully, and I am sure that the Council is aware of the need to find a solution.

Local Education Authority Staff (Trade Union) Membership

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will send a circular to all local education authorities advising them that membership of an appropriate trade union should be a condition of service for new appointments to their salaried staff.

Mr. Edward Short: Conditions of service in local government are matters for the local authorities.

Mr. Longden: While wishing to encourage every teacher to join the union of his own choice, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he remembers what a predecessor of his did some years ago in connection with the action of the Durham County Council?

Mr. Short: That happened in 1951 when there was a direction under Section 68. It was issued because the Minister felt that the council might not be able to carry out its statutory duties.

School Building Programme

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities are still awaiting approval for their 1968–69 school building programmes.

Mr. Edward Short: Letters have been sent this week to all local education authorities in England and Wales.

Mr. Silvester: Is the Secretary of State aware that great inconvenience has been caused to local education authorities which have, I believe, this day received information about the building programme for 1968–69? Would he like to take the opportunity of expressing his apologies to them for the inconvenience so caused?

Mr. Short: This is a consequence of postponing the raising of the school-

leaving age. I met the chief education officers this week, and I am sure that they fully understand the reasons for the delay.

Sir E. Boyle: Have the final allocations now been sent out or is the right hon. Gentleman, as on many previous occasions, keeping some money in reserve for those authorities which can put forward the strongest case for an addition to their programmes?

Mr. Short: I am afraid that the final allocations have been sent out for this year.

Small Companies (Regional Tours)

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will consult with the Regional Arts Associations with a view to their undertaking the arrangements for tours by small companies, so as to ensure continuity of their engagements.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): Nearly all the regional arts associations already arrange tours by small companies, and on 14th June representatives of the associations discussed inter-regional co-operation in this field. A meeting of their officers will be held in November to discuss touring plans for the following years.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. However, would she bear in mind the necessity of urging forward the inter-regionalisation administrative arrangements so that companies such as the Minerva Ballet, which do such good work on an Arts Council shoestring, may have the assurance of continuity?

Miss Lee: I am sure that all our regional associations will be looking round eagerly for every gifted company on the boards.

Painters and Sculptors (Royalties)

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he is considering for a scheme to provide painters and sculptors with royalties on their work.

Miss Jennie Lee: I have received an outline of a scheme under which painters


and sculptors would share in the increased prices resulting from re-sales of their work and am aware that in France and other countries some such provision has already been made. As this proposal has copyright implications I am consulting my colleagues in the Board of Trade.

Mr. Channon: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the widespread interest which there will be in what she has said today? Will she let the House and the public know details of this scheme so that they can decide whether they think that it is a good idea?

Miss Lee: I have given the House all the information I can. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest. We should be able to work out a viable plan.

University Students

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will introduce legislation to provide that where students at universities take part in sit-in strikes they will be charged for the use of the buildings involved.

Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public are getting a bit fed up with students who indulge in sit-ins and occupy premises which are paid for by the public and who are receiving grants? Will he make it clear to students that there are no such things as free universities and charge them accordingly for the use of premises?

Mr. Short: University discipline is a matter for the universities which, usually by Royal Charter or Act of Parliament, are autonomous, and I have no power to intervene, even if I wished to do so. I think it is worth pointing out that in no case in this country has a majority of students carried out lawless behaviour of this kind, and in every case in which a majority of students have asserted themselves the trouble has ended.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he took serious cognisance of the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) he would immediately be accused of using the heavy hand of the State to muzzle free expression of views by students in this country?

Mr. Short: I do not condone lawlessness or breaches of the law. I condemn them very strongly. But the time to beware is when students stop protesting.

Mr. Jennings: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to institute a full inquiry into relationships between students and university authorities?

Mr. Short: There is a later Question about an inquiry.

Nursery Teachers (Training Courses)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to assist local education authorities to set up more day and evening training courses to train enough nursery teachers to meet the rising demand as a result of the implementation of the Education Act, 1944.

Miss Bacon: Twenty-five colleges of education now advertise courses of training for teachers specialising in the age ranges covering both the nursery and infant age groups, and the numbers of students have risen from 941 in 1964–65 to 1,209 in 1966–67. The present shortage of infant teachers makes it necessary for the colleges to concentrate their main efforts on the compulsory stages of education; but where colleges are able and staffed to offer courses which cover the nursery stages as well we are happy to authorise this.

Mrs. Short: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, will she endeavour to give more encouragement to local education authorities to start more of these training courses, especially for nursery teachers, in view of the rising demand all over the country for the implementation of the 1944 Act relating to nursery education, which was underlined by the Plowden Report? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have support from the whole House if she does this.

Miss Bacon: I think that my hon. Friend is a little confused between nursery teachers and nursery assistants.

Mrs. Short: No.

Miss Bacon: The Plowden Report particularly asked for training of nursery assistants.

Mrs. Short: rose—

Miss Bacon: I fully understand my hon. Friend's question. There are the two points: nursery teachers and nursery assistants. It would be wrong at this time to have a great many nursery assistants trained unless we could offer them places in nursery school classes.

Primary School Places, Wolverhampton

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that the 19 empty primary classrooms in Wolverhampton schools are used for the children of school age who have been unable to get a school place so far.

Miss Bacon: This is a matter for the authority, who have told me that they hope to staff and fill every available classroom by next September.

Mrs. Short: Is not this a very extraordinary situation? In spite of my right hon. Friend's generosity in allowing the Wolverhampton education authority to build four new primary schools, there are still 400 children unable to get places. Does my right hon. Friend not think she should be much tougher with the education authority to see that these empty classrooms are in fact used? This is a nonsensical situation, and it is depriving large numbers of children of the education that they should have.

Miss Bacon: My right hon. Friend and I visited Wolverhampton recently and noted the position there. Some of these empty classrooms are caused by the fact that numbers on the new estates have not risen to the expected maximum and because the local authority cannot get the necessary teachers. I would emphasise that my right hon. Friend is willing to raise the quota, and indeed has done so, in these areas of special difficulty. But it is the inability of certain authorities to recruit the numbers of teachers in their quota which makes the problem so difficult.

Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. Lady agree that nothing causes more genuine indignation than the spectacle of empty classrooms in the same city where one has overcrowded schools? Will the right hon. Lady do what she can to see that the situation does not arise again, particularly

in the West Midlands, where she knows there are special problems?

Miss Bacon: Yes, certainly. As I said, my right hon. Friend and I visited the West Midlands and we discussed all these problems. I hope that before long these classrooms will be full.

British Museum

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about congestion in the British Museum; and what action he is taking to ensure presentation of its unique exhibits in a manner consistent with contemporary museum standards.

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made in remedying the shortage of room for exhibits at the British Museum.

Miss Jennie Lee: Funds are now available for a number of important developments at the British Museum as part of the 12-year building programme for the National Museums and Galleries— projects include a microfilm unit at Colin-dale, a photographic studio, a public restaurant and the reconstruction of the bronze and vase rooms.
In addition the move of the Ethnography Department to Burlington Gardens is expected to take place early in 1970. The Museum has an exhibitions officer on its staff; it also employed a firm of design consultants for the reconstruction of the Western Sculpture Galleries, where an exhibition will be on view to the public from 5th July.

Dr. Dunwoody: I can assure my right hon. Friend that her Answer will be welcomed by all who believe that museums could do a great deal more in education as a whole. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the authorities in the British Museum and other museums to arrange exhibits to cater particularly for the needs of young people and schoolchildren?

Miss Lee: I can assure my hon. Friend that very high priority is now being given in our museums to special exhibitions which will encourage visits by children.

Mr. Whitaker: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may


I ask whether she will arrange for exhibits, for which there is no room for display, to be loaned temporarily to other museums in other parts of the country?

Miss Lee: I know about the problem of trying to move exhibits from one part of the country to another. I can only say that our museum authorities are in an extremely co-operative mood and that they want to assist one another as much as possible.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Ql. Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present state of Great Britain's negotiations over the Common Market, he will now set up a study group to consider alternatives.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers I gave to Questions on 18th June, just two days ago.—[Vol. 766, c. 906–8.]

Mr. Marten: As the study which the Government made well over a year ago showed that there were considerable economic advantages in the proposition of the Atlantic Free Trade Area over joining the Common Market, will the Government publish that study, particularly because of the rising interest of many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the rising interest and the importance of the subject. It would not be appropriate to publish internal documents of that kind, not least because I gave to the House, and so did my right hon. Friends, the fullest arguments which emerged from our study of the subject.

Mr. Richard: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reiterate clearly and unmistakably, first, that we believe in the concept of a united Europe; secondly, that that concept is meaningless without Great Britain; and, thirdly, that the first step towards attaining it is the early accession of Britain to the European Economic Community?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I reiterated that very clearly last Tuesday, and several

times in the last month. On Tuesday I also emphasised the need for a truly united Europe looking outwards and uniting, as far as possible, the whole of Europe, not just a part of it.

Mr. Jennings: Has the Prime Minister entirely closed his mind to a consideration of any other alternative, or is he prepared to examine, in a much more flexible attitude than has been shown hitherto, the whole question of alternatives to entering the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I have said that there are possible advantages, but that this particular proposal is not a current reality. After very deep consideration, our view was that membership of the E.E.C. and of the other communities was by far the best thing for Britain and for Europe.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Lord President of the Council on Friday, 29th March at Basildon on post-devaluation economic strategy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: In referring the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on 28th May, which followed 12 Answers given by me in this House on this particular speech of nearly three months ago, I regret that the hon. Member has thought fit to waste the time of the House by repeatedly tabling and retabling this Question on the Order Paper, Sir.—[Vol. 765, c. 208–9.]

Sir F. Bennett: If the Prime Minister thinks that he has already adequately dealt with this Question, will he now take the advice of the Lord President of the Council to take the people of this country into his confidence and tell them about the true state of this country's international indebtedness?

The Prime Minister: I dealt with all the questions arising from my right hon. Friend's speech in 12 Oral Answers that I have given to the House. If the hon. Gentleman is fairly interested in the


position of our international indebtedness, perhaps he will put down a Question to the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Barnett: rose—

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. My right hon. Friend said that he had answered 12 Oral Questions on this matter. Does not the rule of tedious repetition extend to this? Mr. Speaker, will you give consideration to the idea that a continuity of repetitive Questions, which always come on to the Prime Minister's list, amounts to an abuse?

Mr. Speaker: I do give consideration, but there is little I can do about it.

Mr. Barnett: Whilst recognising that the original Question was framed for cheap party interests rather than Britain's, is it not a fact that the recent figures of capital outflow are sufficiently disturbing to make the Government perhaps reconsider their strategy, at least in this sense, and recognise that, no matter what value there is in capital outflow abroad at some times, at the present time, as we need it so desperately at home, it might be as well to reconsider it?

The Prime Minister: That is an important but entirely different question. It was not raised in my right hon. Friend's speech at Basildon on 29th March, and it raises broad issues which, as my hon. Friend knows, have been repeatedly debated in the House, and which are incapable of being answered adequately at Question and Answer time.

Mr. Strauss: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer you gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that you could do nothing about repetitive Questions, may I draw your attention to the fact that Erskine May states categorically that no Question may be put down which has already been answered? In view of that, may I suggest that it is within your power and authority to take action?

Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Member that the Table refuses Questions which have already been answered. There are, however, circumstances in which the Table must accept Questions from hon. Members.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister and his hon. Friends do not realise the

fascinating importance of the Lord President's speech. One of the things which he emphasised most was that the Government's economic strategy would not be effective unless the Prime Minister and the Government took the people of this country into their confidence. When will the Prime Minister explain, as his hon. Friend has asked, the seriousness of the economic situation in which the first quarter's deficit was £370 million, in which unemployment is now the highest for any June since June, 1940, and in which the Government's net borrowing is now 10 per cent. of the national income for the year?

The Prime Minister: None of that arises out of my hon. Friend's question. The right hon. Gentleman is free to raise the matter at any time and to get a very full answer. What my hon. Friend raised was the question of capital controls. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to urge capital controls upon us because of the very high element in the first quarter's figures, I shall note what he said.

Mr. Heath: Does the Prime Minister's answer that if a Question is put down about our indebtedness it will get a full reply mean that he will now tell us the answer?

The Prime Minister: With regard to a question about indebtedness, I said last week that we followed the practice of the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

Sir F. Bennett: On a point of order. As my Question has three times been referred to in points of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to give notice, he must do it in the proper way.

Sir F. Bennett: I am not doing that. With respect, Mr. Speaker, you have anticipated what I was not going to say. As my Question has been referred to, I want on a point of order to state that it was put down within 48 hours of the speech being made. The reason why it has not been answered is the turgidity of the Prime Minister in not answering Questions when they are put to him.

Mr. Speaker: Part of that is a point of fact, the other is a point of comment.

POLITICAL ECONOMISTS (CORRESPONDENCE)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the letter he received on 9th May from seven economists, headed by Mr. Edward Holloway, on the causes of the current inflationary pressures within the economy.

The Prime Minister: I have arranged for my correspondence with this group of political economists to be placed in the Library, Sir.

Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that these distinguished economists drew the Prime Minister's attention to the worldwide lack of confidence in Britain arising from our continuing failure to contain inflation? Does not the Prime Minister feel that the latest depressing figures of industrial production, coupled with the ever-rising trend of Government expenditure, give compelling evidence of the validity of the case which these economists are making?

The Prime Minister: I thought that these very distinguished political economists succeeded in putting into economic jargon some of the more ignorant shibboleths of hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman, he will have seen, as I think I said in my reply, that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that ours is neither the most highly taxed country, nor does Government expenditure absorb more of our resources than in many other countries in comparable circumstances.

Mr. Cant: Perhaps I might remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the 13 halcyon years of Tory rule are the most dramatic refutation that we have of the public expenditure thesis. In the first five years when public expenditure fell from 40 per cent. to 36 per cent. of national income there was a growth rate of 2 per cent. When it rose from 36 per cent. to 40 per cent. the growth rate was just under 3 per cent. If the Friedman Chicago school of monetary theory is laughed at in the United States, why should we take it seriously here?

The Prime Minister: I think that all those considerations are extremely germane to the correspondence which I have had with these economists, but I do not

think that it is for me to add to the enlightenment which my hon. Friend has been giving to hon. Gentlemen opposite, except, on the point of Government expenditure, to say that out of every 10 proposals which we make for cuts in Government expenditure the Opposition vote against nine, and campaign against all 10.

Mr. Turton: Will the Prime Minister make clear whether he agrees or disagrees with the verdict of these economists that the prime cause of inflation has been the fact that in the last three years deficit expenditure to the amount of more than £3,000 million has been covered not by borrowings from the private non-bank sector, but by the central banks?

The Prime Minister: I should not use the word "verdict" about an ex-parte statement by these economists. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is, "No, I do not agree with their analysis or their conclusions".

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister when the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference will take place.

The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the Answers I gave on 2nd May and 4th April to Questions by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham).—[Vol. 763, c. 1285–7; Vol. 762, c. 600–1.]

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend consider submitting a proposal to his Commonwealth colleagues to hold such a Conference on the basis of showing the British Commonwealth flag and ideals in Salisbury in Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: The Question relates to holding a conference, and we were not proposing to hold it in Salisbury. The venue has not been settled, and there is this great difficulty, that with 27 independent countries of the Commonwealth it is proving very difficult to get agreement on a particular date when we can all be present, and


when, unlike at the recent Commonwealth conference, we shall have present a very high proportion of Heads of Government. I hope that we shall agree on a date, but nearly every date suggested so far has been difficult for one or more Prime Ministers. We have ourselves put forward a number of alternative dates.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (SPEECH)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister whether the public statement of the Secretary of State for Defence at Brussels on 10th May, regarding the level of forces available to the British Army of the Rhine, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Did not the Secretary of State say that this extra assignment of 20,000 men was to help Britain's connection with the Common Market? Is not that a bad reason for a bad policy? When N.A.T.O. is supposed to be considering mutual troop reductions east and west, why on earth should Britain appear to move in the opposite direction?

The Prime Minister: I have read my right hon. Friend's speech. I did not find that thought expressed on those words, but I shall look at it again. My right hon. Friend gave the reasons for this decision. With regard to mutual reductions, it is the policy of the Government, and we are pursuing it very actively, and shall be again at Reykjavik, to try to get an agreed reduction in military strength on both sides of the Iron Curtain. That is different from a unilateral reduction by the West.

Mr. Maudling: In the light of the Government's statement after the recent Kuala Lumpur conference, will the units committed to N.A.T.O. remain readily available, without inhibition for redeployment east of Suez?

The Prime Minister: That does not affect our ability to formulate a general capability in circumstances where we consider it right to make a contribution. I think the right hon. Gentleman will know that under successive Governments we have from time to time, when an im-

portant Commonwealth or other commitment has to be met, drawn on troops in Germany equally with drawing on troops in this country. What my right hon. Friend said at Kuala Lumpur does not make any difference.

Mr. Shinwell: I think that every hon. Member, on both sides, will agree that we should seek a reduction of forces on both sides of the Iron Curtain, but was it nevertheless appropriate for the Minister to say that the assignment of additional forces is associated with our desire to enter the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I said that I wanted to study the exact wording, because I had not read that into it. What my right hon. Friend was saying and has said many times in the House, and what was the basis of the defence debates this year, is that our decisions to redeploy the forces at present east of Suez will mean a heavier concentration of our defence effort on and in Europe. That was the theme of what he was saying. On the question of the mutual troop reductions, I have nothing to add to what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the tense situation in Germany and the possibility that a future American Administration might reduce its forces in Europe, would the right hon. Gentieman consider very carefully before accepting any of the advice of his hon. Friends to reduce Rhine Army?

The Prime Minister: All these matters are appropriate to collective discussion in N.A.T.O., and this very question, I am certain, will be one of the leading matters to be discussed at Reykjavik next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 24TH JUNE—Completion of the remaining stages of the Medicines Bill.
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business for consideration.
Afterwards, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Countryside Bill and to the Justices of the Peace Bill.
TUESDAY, 25TH JUNE and WEDNESDAY, 26TH JUNE—Progress on the remaining stages of the Prices and Incomes Bill.
THURSDAY, 27TH JUNE—Completion of the remaining stages of the Prices and Incomes Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about seven o'clock.
Remaining stages of the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill.
FRIDAY, 28TH JUNE—Second Reading of the International Monetary Fund Bill and of the Overseas Aid Bill, and, if there is time, of the Swaziland Independence Bill.
MONDAY, 1ST JULY—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, progress on the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, recall that, last week, I asked whether the Foreign Secretary would keep the House informed of the progress of the peace talks with Nigeria and Biafra and also about the supply of arms. Will he be making a statement about this next week?

Mr. Peart: The Minister of State is out there now and will be reporting back. I will note carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Macdonald: When will my right hon. Friend find time for the affirmative Order under the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act relating to Turkish vehicles coming into this country and our vehicles entering Turkey, which the Ministry of Transport has been waiting to lay since 4th April?

Mr. Peart: I have not announced it for next week.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the possibility of a debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations? Will he seriously consider a debate before the Government's consultations with both sides of industry

go further? Would it not be a good thing, because there is much knowledge on these matters in all quarters of the House, for the Government to get the views of hon. Members before they begin to make up their own mind?

Mr. Peart: I am aware and will take note of that, but on a Business statement, my reply is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman used to say, "Not next week."

Dr. Hugh Gray: In view of the continuining situation at the Hornsey College of Art and the situation in other educational institutions, is it not time that my right hon. Friend provided time for a debate on student discontents? We do not yet have a Paris situation, but we may well have one. Should he not give us plenty of time to voice our views on what is happening in these institutions?

Mr. Peart: I could not find time for it in next week's business.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, and recognising your discretion in these matters, may I remind you of the traditional practice of the House on business, namely, that questions should be directed primarily to business in the following week and that we have departed from that practice to the extent that all kinds of questions are put which are not relevant to business for the next week?

Mr. Speaker: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says, but the departure is of long standing and at business question time Members are seeking to plead a case that something be brought either into the business of next week or into business early ahead. The House will, however, be aware, I think, that business question time has extended in length a great deal and that this is done at the expense of other important business.

Mr. R. Carr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have deliberately refrained this week from pressing for statements on the various industrial disputes which are taking place or threatened, so as not to lessen the chances of solving these matters? Would he, therefore, particularly ask his right hon. Friend to keep the House informed next week as soon as possible?

Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. McNamara: May I ask, out of deference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), why we are not to have next week a statement on the Government's proposals for the fishing industry?

Mr. Peart: When my right hon. Friend is ready, he will no doubt do so, but not next week.

Mr. Sharpies: When will the right hon. Gentleman honour his pledge to provide time for a debate on prisons?

Mr. Peart: I never gave a specific pledge. I said that I would consider it. Time was lost because of action by hon. Members who were on the Committee.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend consider giving a full day in the near future to a debate on the question of disarmament in all its aspects?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend knows about the signing of a treaty. It may well be that this could come up in the foreign affairs debate, but not next week.

Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 250 back benchers have now signed Motion No. 168, on the population problem, which he agreed a month ago was worth a debate?
[That this House, noting that England itself now rivals Holland and Taiwan as the most densely populated territory in the world, apart from some small islands and city states, and that the population of the United Kingdom is likely to increase by a third from 55 to 73 million by the end of the century, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to establish permanent and adequate machinery for examining the difficulties to which such population growth will give rise and for giving early warning to Parliament of such difficulties and to advise what steps should be taken to overcome them well in advance of crisis point.]
When will he be able to provide time for that debate?

Mr. Peart: I know that population is a very important problem, but I cannot find time for a debate next week.

Mr. W. Baxter: In view of the expressions of opinion by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party, and in many by-elections, and the expressions of opinion by the people of Scotland, when will my right hon. Friend give us an opportunity to debate devolution in regard to Scotland?

Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly on this matter, but I could not put it in the programme I have announced.

Mr. Ridsdale: Could not the Government be more imaginative about their business for next week and drop one day of the debate on the Prices and Incomes Bill, so as to have, instead, a day's economic debate, in view of the unsatisfactory exchanges across the Floor of the House to-day on economic questions?

Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Member wants to go much further than business.

Mr. Ramsden: What is the expected date of the publication of the summer Defence White Paper? There is considerable concern about this, in view of what it may hold in store for the future of individual regiments.

Mr. Peart: As promised, there will be another White Paper on Defence in the next few weeks.

Mr. English: Would my right hon. Friend apply his mind to Motion No. 343, signed by 58 hon. Members and myself, on the cereals price increase?
[That this House would view with concern any proposal to increase minimum import prices for cereals merely to save Exchequer subsidies to farmers, since it would annoy our overseas suppliers without benefiting our own farmers and it would both increase our already excessive import bill and increase internal prices contrary to the Government's economic and prices policies.]
Before he says, "Not next week", would he recollect that the relevant Order may be laid next week?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in cereals and agricultural matters, but I cannot promise him any time for a debate.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the developments at the United Nations on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, would the right hon. Gentleman find time during the next two or three weeks to debate this matter?

Mr. Peart: That is something which we should consider, but I cannot promise a specific date.

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are concerned about the present disputes in the motor industry, which are causing unemployment on Merseyside and in the South-East? Would he give an undertaking that he will ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to make a statement on this next week?

Mr. Peart: I thought that that had been previously answered, but I will note it.

Dame Joan Vickers: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Motion No. 325, on prescription charges for women over 60?
[That this House, bearing in mind that the age of 60 years has been accepted as the retirement age for women for purposes of social security benefits, is of the opinion that all women aged 60 years and over should be exempt from the payment of National Health Service prescription charges.]
As they had to start paying on 10th June, can he take action next week to see that the position is changed?

Mr. Peart: I will convey the point to the Minister of Health, but I cannot find time for this to be dealt with in the House.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Once again, may I ask my right hon. Friend to find time to debate my Motion about the threatened disbandment of the Gordon Highlanders, a matter of great interest to Aberdonians and people throughout Scotland?
[That this House views with disfavour the proposal to disband certain distinguished Scottish regiments, in particular the Gordons and Argylls, both of which have close family and other connections with Aberdeen and other places in north-east Scotland from which those regiments draw their members and upon which places their gallantry and military distinctions shed glory; and calls upon the Government to allow these regiments to continue their patriotic work.]

Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. and learned Friend feels very strongly and passionately about this and other famous regiments, but I cannot find time for the matter to be debated next week.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: After the excellent and constructive debate in another place on the subject of Rhodesia, is it not very urgent that we debate the composition of a reformed House of Commons?

Mr. Peart: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making shortly.

Mr. John Fraser: Without wishing to cut into Government time, is my right hon. Friend able to find time to complete the remaining stages of the Sunday Entertainments Bill?

Mr. Peart: I appreciate that many hon. Members feel strongly about this Measure. I will look into the matter.

rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

HOUSE OF LORDS (LEGISLATION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
As the House will be aware, the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order, 1968 (Statutory Instrument 1968, No. 885) dated 7th June, 1968, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, which was approved by this House on Monday, 17th June, was on Tuesday rejected in another place.
I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Order, which were argued in this House at length on Monday, and accepted by this House.
What the Conservative majority in another place are arrogating to themselves is that this elected Chamber and the Government of this country, in their international relations and international commitments, can be frustrated, and their actions nullified, by another place, on one condition, namely, that a Labour Government are in office. By a simple majority in another place they, accountable to none, have now, quite deliberately, sought to assert a power to put this country in default of international obligations solemnly entered into, and particularly Article 25 of the Charter of the


United Nations, which binds this country and all other members of the United Nations to implement decisions, having mandatory effect, of the Security Council.
This decision was taken after the clearest warnings as to its meaning and as to its consequences. No Government could for one moment tolerate action of this kind, which was taken not in pursuance of any democratic objective, but in pursuance of calculated party advantage. This House cannot accept what has happened and cannot but treat it as a denial of democracy and a total frustration of the spirit of our Constitution.
This House will expect that the verdict of the elected Chamber will be given effect to. It is the Government's intention to advise Her Majesty to make a fresh Order in Council which both Houses will be asked to approve at the earliest possible moment.
The House will recall the terms of the Gracious Speech:
Legislation will be introduced to reduce the powers of the House of Lords and to eliminate its present hereditary basis, thereby enabling it to develop within the framework of a modern parliamentary system.
The House will be aware that, on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government, constructive talks have been continuing for several months about House of Lords reform, talks which have been directed both to the powers of another place and to its composition, in the confident and not unreasonable hope that an all-party consensus could be reached about the place, powers, and composition of the Second Chamber in the second half of the 20th century.
The deliberate and calculated decision of the Conservative Party to take the action it did on Tuesday was in direct contravention of the spirit in which these talks were being conducted. There is no precedent for the voting down of a Statutory Instrument by the non-elected Chamber in which, in present circumstances, most of its Members sit not by the right of creation but by the right of succession from some near or distant ancestor. Not since the Parliament Act have they deliberately set themselves out to frustrate in this way the executive ac-

tions, and in this case actions to fulfil the international commitments of an elected Government.
Since this decision was clearly taken after the fullest consideration, and after every warning of the consequences, there can be no question of these all-party talks, in these new circumstances, continuing. Although the time has not been wasted, and valuable proposals have been put forward both about the powers and the composition of another place, I must tell the House that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at an early date of the Government's choosing, to introduce comprehensive and radical legislation to give effect to the intention announced in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Heath: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Shouting from neither side does any good.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first half of his statement contained a number of so-called constitutional doctrines which would certainly not be accepted by any constituhistorian of any standing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]—and certainly should be debated? Is he aware that the House of Lords was exercising a right which was maintained by the Labour Government in 1949, a right which, it has now been made widely known in the Press, the Lords would be able to exercise under the proposed reformed powers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In these circumstances, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there can be absolutely no justification for this typical and characteristic attitude of the Prime Minister in breaking off these talks?
What we are seeing is a nasty, petulant display of tantrums and when the Prime Minister has had time to quieten down and get over them he will find that we are quite prepared to carry on the very constructive work which has been done so far.

The Prime Minister: No constitutional historian would be able to find a precedent for last Tuesday's action, which was totally opposed to the whole spirit of the talks. I will not comment on the right hon. Gentleman or on the


attempts of the Press to say what has emerged so far from the talks, because all parties agreed to confidentiality. If the Leader of the Opposition wants disclosure, he can have it.
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that this is likely to have happened under what has been proposed so far, because we were discussing a fundamental change in the constitution and not a House of Lords based on the hereditary principle, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The talks have been proceeding so far in reasonable agreement on all these questions, as the House will have to judge if this matter is ever put before it.
We are now taking the decision to introduce legislation in our time and of our choosing in view of the fact that last week the whole purpose of these talks was frustrated by and with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman. The whole tone of this week's apologies, in that their Lordships were only giving the Commons time to think again, is entirely different from the briefing which the right hon. Gentleman and others were putting out all last week, when they thought that they would get away with it.
I am not quite clear whether last week the right hon. Gentleman was engaged on what he thought was the assertion of a new constitutional doctrine or a squalid political manoeuvre; but it was clear that he made a poor fist of both of them.

Mr. Heath: As the purpose of the talks was to reach agreement between the three parties, which wanted to see a reformed House of Lords, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the obvious thing for the Government to do is to get over this silly petulant attitude and get on with them?

The Prime Minister: I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's sourness about what happened and the defeat of his manoeuvre, but that does not excuse the right hon. Gentleman. On an important constitutional question, we are used to his giving way in this place to right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but that does not excuse his having his party's constitutional approach run for him by the Marquess of Salisbury.

Mr. Atkinson: While welcoming the proposals implicit in the Prime Minis-

ter's statement, may I ask whether the House is now to take it that when the Prime Minister referred to the Second Chamber throughout the second half of the 20th century this now means that the Labour Government are guaranteeing the existence of a Second Chamber? Will the Prime Minister accept that this is contrary to Labour Party policy?

The Prime Minister: I know that a number of my hon. Friends are in favour of unicameral government, but that has not been the position of this party. Indeed, if my hon. Friend will refresh himself on the manifesto on which he was elected on the last occasion—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot titter his way out of this one. My hon. Friend will find that there and in the Gracious Speech we stated specifically our intention to proceed to legislation of the kind I have mentioned.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I deliberately referred to Labour Party policy, which is determined by the annual conference and I was not— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument, not a point of order.

Mr. Thorpe: Without disclosing what transpired in the conferences on the House of Lords, of which I have been a rather more regular attender than the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Heath: On a point of order—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heath. A point of order.

Mr. Heath: On a point of order. As neither the Prime Minister nor I are members of the continuing talks on this matter, ought not the Leader of the Liberal Party to withdraw?

Mr. Thorpe: Recollecting the official arrangement whereby the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and I all agreed that we had the liberty to attend as and when we wished, and


repeating to the Prime Minister the question whether he is aware that my attendance has been somewhat more numerous than that of the Leader of the Opposition, may I dissociate myself from the interpretation by the Leader of the Opposition as to what were the suggested powers put forward by this conference, which does not represent what has been suggested or is likely to be suggested? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is the Prime Minister aware—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of questions to come and I want to hear them.

Mr. Thorpe: —that 194 noble Lords, 119 of whom are hereditary Conservative Peers, were egged on by the Leader of the Opposition to frustrate the will of the House of Commons against the need for radical reform, which beyond doubt is a matter for urgent legislation? May I ask two questions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I ask three questions?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that no one will interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, or he may ask four.

Mr. Thorpe: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
Then may I ask two questions? First, whether we are to expect legislation this Session or later, and secondly, whether the Prime Minister, with his usual sense of priorities, will not allow the introduction of that legislation to overshadow the need for other legislation in this House on matters of the economy and the need to reform this House, which are the continuing responsibility of this House in general and of Her Majesty's Government in particular?

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to intervene as between two right hon. Gentlemen and their respective accounts of talks which I understood were confidential and which, as far as I am concerned, will remain confidential until there is a decision to the contrary.
Secondly, on the account by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) of the voting in another place on Tuesday, I am not sure that it is proper for me to comment, but it seems to be an accurate account of history.
I cannot at this stage say when the legislation will be introduced, but it will be at an early date.
With regard to the question of priorities, I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, although, in view of the situation forced on us by last Tuesday the first priority is to retable the Order and have it accepted by both Houses.

Mr. James Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in the statement he has made he will have the support not only of this side of the House, but of the majority of people in the country? Is he aware that since it is now becoming fairly evident that, having made the statement, and having decided that talks which have been taking place should not continue, we are likely in the course of the next few weeks to have all kinds of versions of what has happened? Would it not be better, in the interests of the House of Commons as a whole and of fair consideration of all these problems, that the proposals put forward should be published as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I shall, of course, consider that, although, as I said, it will have to be a matter of agreement. We shall draw on the experience of those talks, but the House will have the Government's own proposals at an early date. I think that it would be more productive to consider those than what happened in a committee whose work was deliberably sabotaged by a political manoeuvre.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: To come back to the facts of the situation, in the interests of Parliament as a whole, and in view of the high standard of debate in another place, and the narrowness of the majority and the fact that it was stated that if the Order were reintroduced in similar terms it would not be officially opposed, has not the Prime Minister got this matter completely out of perspective? Is he not being rather hysterical about it all?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The back-tracking which went on on Monday and Tuesday about the question of leting it go through a second time and the other things that were said were a very big change from what was said when the manoeuvre was begun a week before. What happened was that the Lords were


sensitive to Press criticism and about the consequences of what they were doing. The fact that the majority was as small as it was was no fault of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, beause every effort was made by a three-line Whip to get every backwoodsman there. It was a tribute not to the right hon. Gentleman's effort, but to his incompetence.

Mr. Coe: We on these benches welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend. When he introduces the comprehensive proposals, will he recognise that many of us believe that we must have total abolition of the delaying powers of the Lords and of the hereditary principle?

The Prime Minister: I cannot go beyond what was said in the Gracious Speech, which dealt with both those questions.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: If his statement means that the Prime Minister intends to set up a Second Chamber which is totally submissive to his Government, may we take it that he will start by treating this House and the electorate with very much less contempt than he does now?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will be aware that that is not the intention of any party in these talks about the future of another place. What we on this side of the House, and I think most people in the country, feel is that this assertion we have had from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that another place exists to stop the Government in their tracks if they are a Labour Government, is unacceptable. When the Conservative Government were extremely unpopular and were pushing through a piece of legislation—the Rent Act— which was universally disliked, and to whose repeal when we repealed it hon. Gentlemen opposite did not object, I do not remember that at any time there was any suggestion that another place should intervene to correct the decisions, however wrong, of this House.

Mr. C. Pannell: Reverting to what the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said about the fact that there was minimal interference the other day in the Lords and a general attempt to play this matter down, is it not a fact that this followed a Press

campaign which hinted that this would go much further into the realms of legislation, particularly the Transport Bill? In view of what happened, can my right hon. Friend imagine anyone on these benches daring to trust the Second Chamber again?

The Prime Minister: I cannot comment on what might happen in another place—it would not be right for me to do so—about legislation which has gone through, or which may go through, this House. The motives for the actions taken by the Conservative Party in this case were not in their first presentation in any way related to a chance for the Commons to think again, but to a continuous attempt to frustrate the operation of the Government in their international relations.

Mr. Maudling: The Prime Minister was good enough to pay some tribute to the work we have been doing on the inter-party committee. Since presumably the Prime Minister proposed these inter-party discussions, not as a favour to the Opposition, but because he believed it to be in the national interest to have agreement on a revised Second Chamber, why does a perfectly constitutional action by the existing Chamber change the situation about the future?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can have his own interpretation of the constitution. The action was unprecedented. It was the partial result of interference in another place by the Leadership in this House of Commons and it was a reflection of the attitude to Rhodesia under which the right hon. Gentleman has rushed as fast as his legs can carry him into the dictation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the Marquess of Salisbury.

Mr. Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in contrast to what the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has just said, public opinion will be forthcoming in supporting the Government's announcement today? Will he further accept that what is needed is speedy action so that the reply should be immediate to this arrogation of power by another place? Will he accept that what is needed is complete disruption of


the Lords' delaying power so that legislation should not be endangered during the remainder of this Parliament?

The Prime Minister: Even ahead of that it is important to take action to enable their Lordships to regurgitate last Tuesday's activities so far as the Order is concerned. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will ensure a speedy passage for it in this House. He might also tell the Opposition spokesman that he was quite wrong on the radio in saying that this Order had anything to do, because it had not, with the question of material assistance to other African countries. Right hon. Gentlemen must read the Order before they talk about it.

Lieut-Commander Maydon: May I ask the Prime Minister for one moment to put aside party rancour and to apply his mind seriously to this question. In a bicameral system what would he think would be the purpose of a Second Chamber—just to be a rubber stamp to the diktats of the Government in power?

The Prime Minister: My conception of the rôle and putting aside all party affections, as I was asked to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, of the Second Chamber, which I believe has an important rôle to play in the Constitution, does not include the concept that it must rubber stamp everything that comes from a Conservative Government without querying it whereas it must assert to itself unprecedently the right to veto the actions of a Labour Government.

Mr. Whitaker: Irrespective of whatever the vote had been last Tuesday, is it not a matter of elementary principle that 300 years after Cromwell it is high time we announced close of play at hereditary Lords? Can we not have legislation this Session and also have the abolition of titles? A man's reputation should be sufficient honour for him.

The Prime Minister: We are dealing with the constitutional position which was deliberately provoked last Tuesday. I have referred the House to the passage of the Gracious Speech which will be given effect to as early as possible.

Mr. Grimond: The Prime Minister has stressed the undemocratic nature of the other place. When he is considering his

new proposals will he bear in mind that an appointed Second Chamber would be just as undemocratic and, indeed, could be open to certain other objections as well?

The Prime Minister: This is one of the matters which have already been considered in the talks and a great deal of useful thought has emerged. It is clear, because of this provocative action last Tuesday, that we must now follow this period of constitutional reflection and constructive proposal by firm action. This will be done.

Mr. John Lee: Bearing in mind that the legislation can be quite short and simple, would not my right hon. Friend consider the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Ben Whitaker) that the whole of the hereditary peerage should be abolished so that the Marquess of Salisbury can be reduced to Robert Cecil?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would make any difference if that were to happen. We are just concerned with the constitutional question of the powers and composition of the House of Lords. We are not concerned with fundamental alterations to the pages of Debrett.

Mr. Birch: Would not the Prime Minister agree that "Peers v. People". combined with the absolute assurance that "the money in your pocket has not been devalued", would make a spendid election cry?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's continued perversion of that statement on which he will remember that I referred to "the truth you've spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools", should cease.

Mr. Heffer: Reverting to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), may I ask my right hon Friend to give the House an assurance that if we are to have a Second Chamber, as I personally think we should, it will be on the basis of an elected principle and that there will not be people appointed once and for all to a Second Chamber to hold up any business from this House?

The Prime Minister: My hon Friend had better await the legislation and then


express his views on it. We shall bear in mind all that has been said in the inter-party discussions. What I do not think any democracy would support is the perpetration of a Second Chamber, which had a built-in majority for one particular party irrespective of the size of the majority in or the composition of the House of Commons.

Earl of Dalkeith: Can the Prime Minister put his hand on his heart and deny the truth that at the present time the other place reflects far more accurately the views of the population? If he really means what he says about democracy, will he give the people of the country an opportunity to reform this place?

The Prime Minister: I do not remember that argument being used by the noble Lord during the long period—13 years—which the Conservatives had to show what they could do. I do not remember anyone suggesting that the House of Lords should frustrate the actions of the Conservative Government in order to force an election. It did not suit them then, but it suits the Conservative Party to talk that way at the present time. What I think we had last Tuesday was the action of a party which has consistently on this matter supported illegality, using extra-constitutional means in another place.

Mr. John Fraser: If reforming legislation from this House is defeated in the House of Lords, it would waste a great deal of legislative time which could be spent on other projects. Therefore, would the Prime Minister consider exercising his constitutional right to advise the Queen to make up sufficient peers to give the Government a majority in the Lords?

The Prime Minister: On that point —[Interruption.] The Leader of the Conservative Party has got his history of patronage wrong. He used to reward faithful members of Parliament with honours—knighthoods, and the rest. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: That was one way that the right hon. Gentleman had of keeping discipline which he has since lost. I: is not unusual for ex-Ministers, at the end of their period as Ministers, to go to the Lords. The right hon. Gentle-

man will recall that unprecedentedly after the last election I asked him to recommend the names of Conservative Ministers to be nominated for the Lords, which had never been done for the Opposition when the Tories were in office.
With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), I think that I will content myself with using the words of a predecessor, Mr. William Ewart Gladstone, who said:
The resources of civilisation are not yet exhausted.

Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prerogative of the Crown which we would most like him to advise is a dissolution of Parliament?

Mr. Molloy: If Tory peers in another place are interested in entering the country's politics, they can follow the example of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)—chuck their coronets away, and enter the proper field.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision about having any further discussions with the Opposition on this important matter, because what happened the other night was redolent of all that we have considered vulgar in authoritarian States? He might well be dealing with the Opposition Front Bench, who are still under the control of those in another place; and this in itself would be flouting democracy.

The Prime Minister: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the courage of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) who, since he came to this House, has made a most distinguished and notable contribution to the work of the House. I am only sorry that his last intervention, a few moments ago, made him sound almost as pathetic as his Leader.

Mr. Sandys: The Prime Minister said that it was customary for retiring Ministers to go to the House of Lords. Is it not time he went there himself?

The Prime Minister: We usually expect a rather more significant contribution from the right hon. Gentleman. After all, he has dragged his Leader with him on his Rhodesian policy with great success; and, if he is still not satisfied, he can have another word with his P.P.S. on the Front Bench and sort it out.

Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Opposition peers in another place took leave to take advice from the so-called Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia on their action last Tuesday. He will also be aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order; a brief question, please.

Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend will also be aware that many of us on this side of the House were not at all delighted with the joint talks which were taking place and, therefore, are very glad that they have been broken off.
Can my right hon. Friend give us a glimpse into the future, first, by making a clear pronouncement on whether there will be any delaying powers whatsoever in a reformed Second Chamber, and, second, by indicating clearly that there will be the complete abolition of hereditary peerages?

The Prime Minister: I could not hear the first part of my hon. Friend's ques-

tion very well, because hon. Members opposite are obviously trying to talk their way out of the sense of shame that they are feeling. I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the purported instruction given to their Lordships' House by a political figure in Southern Rhodesia, which was obviously counter-productive and resented by the Conservative peers. I think that that should be said in fairness to them. No doubt Mr. Smith had felt so encouraged by his ability to give instructions to hon. Members of this House that he thought that he could get away with it in another House as well.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: On the constitutional precedents, is it not a fact that when the House of Lords rejected Government Measures in 1909 the then Prime Minister found it appropriate to have two General Elections before dealing with the composition of the House of Lords? Half a century later will not the Prime Minister be half as democratic and have one General Election?

The Prime Minister: The difference is that on this occasion we have twice sought a mandate for the legislation that we shall introduce and have been granted it.

rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE (RECOMMITTED) BILL

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 15

AGGREGATION WITH INCOME OF PARENTS OF INVESTMENT, ETC. INCOME OF UNMAPPED INFANTS NOT REGULARLY WOKKING

4.20 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 11, leave out 'and only if'.
I think that it will be convenient, Sir Eric, to discuss this Amendment with the following Amendments: Amendment No. 15,:in line 11, leave out 'a full-time' and insert 'an'; and Amendment No. 16, in line 14, leave out from 'education ' to end of line.
Subsection (3) as drafted, is unworkable, harsh or both. Under subsection (1), the incomes of a child are aggregated with those of its parents while it is not regularly working. Subsection (3) seeks to define the meaning of " not regularly working". As the subsection is short, it may be convenient for me to read it:
An infant is to be treated for the purposes of this section as working regularly if, and only if, he or she is engaged in a full-time occupation, not being one entered into during an interval not exceeding fifteen months between two periods of full-time education, and intends to be regularly engaged in it or another such occupation.
As I understand the meaning of this subsection, it is, first, that aggregation is to take place until the child leaves school. That is the essence of the Clause and no question arises on that. The aggregation is to continue until the child takes full-time occupation. What is the meaning of "full-time" in this context? Is it to be a certain number of hours; or is it to be what the tax collector thinks it should be? This is a taxing provision, and the Government should be clear about what they mean. Is it to be full-

time paid occupation? The child might take up a voluntary job which might occupy it full time. Is that to qualify him to be assessed separately? How is "full-time" to be determined? Is it to be decided by the courts or in some other way?
Even if it is decided that the child is in full-time occupation, under subsection (3) such occupation is still inadequate in two events: first, if the child starts full-time education again within 15 months of leaving school, and, second, unless the child intends to be regularly engaged in a full time occupation continuously thereafter. I am not quite certain whether those are joined by "and", or are intended to be alternatives.
How is it to be known in advance that there will be an interval of 15 months? It seems to me to be quite impossible to determine when a child leaves school, and enters a job, whether or not it will enter full-time occupation. Suppose a mistake is made. Suppose the child leaves school intending to take up a job permanently, but after a certain length of time goes back into education. Is there then to be retrospection? We are dealing with the parents' as well as the child's income, and we must know whether or not the taxation will fall in advance.
The Chief Secretary always deals with this matter as if we are talking of a handful of millonaires. I hope that he will understand from the debate last night that there will be many hard cases, particularly children of divorced parents, where the circumstances are quite humble and it will be essential to know in advance what the position is. How will it be possible to know 15 months in advance what will occur?
How is the intention to remain in full-time occupation to be ascertained? I know of a young man who left school with the intention of taking a full-tune commission in the Army. I imagine that the job he started to do then would count as full-time occupation for the purposes of the Clause. He served for two years in the Army, but just before his 21st birthday he decided that it was not the life for him and went to a university, which is undoubtedly going back into education. That was a case of genuine intention, which was changed. What is the effect of an honest change of intention? How is it dealt with by the Clause?
Whoever gave instructions for the drafting of the Clause has never been a Member of Parliament for a middle-class constituency, or, indeed, any constituency, and, I think, has never been a parent. Nowadays, young people of 18 or so do not know in advance precisely what they will do. Even if they have very clear ideas about it, they very seldom carry them out as intended, and where changes take place the provision will be quite unworkable.
Apart from anything else, there will be a number of cases where young people leave school, but intend in due course to re-enter education. They may wish to do some voluntary service or they may spend a year or so enjoying themselves. This is not at all uncommon. The Clause will encourage them to tell deliberate lies. There will certainly be cases where that encouragement will be very hard to resist, particularly where the income is not very great and the last thing they want to do is to throw a burden on their parents.
The Clause will be very harsh, it will be morally wrong, it will prove to be unworkable, and it will place an additional load on the courts. The Amendments are an attempt to straighten it up, to make it simple, and to give it good sense. If the Government have a better solution I should be willing to withdraw them and accept their solution, but this is the best I can do.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I support the Amendment so clearly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth).
I, too, wonder what happens if a child decides to take up voluntary service. Does it count as full-time employment under the Clause?
I reinforce my hon. Friend's request that the Chief Secretary should consider what happens when children enter employment for the first time. They change their minds about their future constantly, and it seems to me that the Government should have some sympathy in such cases. The Government have changed their minds constantly in a 15-month period on such fundamental issues as devaluation, the maintenance of our position east of Suez and the statutory enforcement of the prices and incomes policy.
If the Government can change their minds so rapidly in 15 months, why should not one expect that young men and women aged 16, 17 and 18 should change their minds about their future? What is to happen if young people change their minds about the future just as often as the Government do?

4.30 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): The Clause was discussed fairly fully upstairs, when similar points were raised. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) have read the report of the proceedings. I do not think that, in practice, we shall have these difficulties, although this is a new provision. I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for their attempt to avoid difficulties, but the provision will be no more difficult in practice than any number of similar provisions of the taxing codes.
The hon. Members were concerned with full-time occupation. Full-time occupation is defined in the Clause as
… any office, employment, trade, profession or vocation".
which means, of course, those known to the taxation Acts and, therefore, if there is an office which does not produce emoluments which are returned for tax purposes, that does not count as an occupation for the purposes of this subsection and thus does not count as a full-time occupation.
This would have the effect of excluding aggregation so that a wholly voluntary occupation would not result in the cessation of aggregation of the unearned income of the child.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Is it possible that the employment of an infant by a parent as, say, a domestic help in the house—for which it would be paid—would be counted as an occupation?

Mr. Diamond: Questions of that kind already arise when a husband employs his wife in a variety of occupations or so-called occupations. The Inland Revenue has to determine whether it is an occupation or a so-called occupation, or an allegation of occupation, and inquiries have to take place. If it is


found that it is not an occupation, then the consequences which would be expected to follow from that will follow. In the case quoted by my hon. Friend, it would be the same process. It would not be easy, however, to imagine the kind of occupation which he has suggested, but it would be easy to imagine similar occupations, such as employment in the father's business or office, perhaps being carried on at home. One would not want to determine the matter in advance. The only answer I can give is that, with a great many matters connected with the administration of tax, the inspector of taxes has to find out the facts and satisfy himself, and if the taxpayer objects to the findings he has the right of appeal.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Would attendance at a military academy be educational or occupational?

Mr. Diamond: It depends on what kind of attendance the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The inspector of taxes would find out the facts. I am not able to give an answer without knowing any of the facts. If the facts are as described by the hon. Gentleman—that it is a full-time occupation—the answer is that there would be a cessation of aggregation. If it is a continuation of education, and is not full-time occupation as described in the Clause, then aggregation would continue.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This is a matter of great importance not only to many parents, but to the country. Surely the hon. Gentleman has heard of military academics. Surely government is not run in watertight compartments. What is the position?

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman wants a serious question to be answered, he must give some of the facts. I am not here to assume them.

Mr. Goodhart: Supposing the student is at Sandhurst, then?

Mr. Diamond: If a student at Sandhurst is merely continuing with his education, and is not engaged in full-time occupation as set out here, aggregation will continue. If hon. Gentlemen know the facts and have difficulty in interpreting them by reference to the Clause, I am

anxious to help, but I am not in a position to determine facts which I do not know in sufficient detail. So the answer to the question on occupation is the one I have given in relation to whether it is paid or voluntary.
The next question was in relation to intention. The hon. Gentlemen and I know that intention is a difficult matter and does not rely on intention if one can find a better method of dealing with the situation. But merely to have an occupation for the moment does not determine the issue. One has to go much further than that and have both an occupation for the moment and an intention of continuing full-time occupation. That is not difficult to decide in practice when one thinks of the dates on which the information is likely to be asked for and needed.
In the normal circumstance, the child will leave school in the middle of the year, at the end of the first quarter of the financial year, and for another nine or 12 months there will be no need for any information to be given to the inspector of taxes with regard to the history of the child's activities during that period. By that time, the probability is that the matter will be clear and ascertained. If it is not, it will not be decided finally until it has become clear. In the normal case, this will present no difficulty.
Of course, it is open to the child concerned to change his mind. On the facts given by. the hon. Member for Hendon, South in the case about which he was good enough to give some detail, I have no hesitation in saying that in the case of the person who enters full-time occupation believing it to be a full-time occupation, but then changes his mind after two years and is still of an age group to be a child and goes to university, there would not be retrospective assessment because, at the time he entered into the full-time occupation, it was clear that it was full-time occupation and that he had ceased therefore to be part of the family unit which constitutes the principle for aggregation. 
I do not think that any of these difficulties will arise in practice. The Amendment would not assist in making the provision more easily administerable and in these circumstances I regret that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it.

Mr. Iain Macleod: We find that a very disappointing answer. There may well be some points which others of my hon. Friends wish to pursue before we take this matter, as we shall, into the Division Lobbies, but there are some which I want to make now.
The Clause and Schedule are detested on this side of the Committee but, given the fact that, for a year at least, they may well be part of the law of the land, we should try and make them comprehensible. My hon. Friends are making a good attempt to make sense of subsection (3). I do not know who drafted it but one can make certain deductions.
First, unquestionably he was a bachelor and he has at no time had any contact with what young people do. Secondly, he must have lived all his life, until he came to its fulfilment in the drafting of subsection (3), on a planet a mile different from the one which hon. Members on both sides know. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has said, anyone who has had children, or who has been linked in any way with young people, knows that the assumptions in subsection (3) are absolute nonsense.
The typical situation which we are considering is of a young man or young woman leaving home and becoming for a time part of the floating population of the bed-sitter world which is concentrated in areas such as Earl's Court, Knights-bridge, and parts of Kensington. A girl of 19 in those circumstances who has some savings income—otherwise she is not affected by the Clause—has not the faintest idea whether, 15 months from now, she will still be part of what I have called that floating population. She has not the faintest idea whether or not she will be married. She has not the slightest idea whether she will be doing the same sort of job, or another job. She has not the slightest idea whether she intends to remain, for ever presumably, full-time in her present, or, indeed, in any other occupation. Every parent knows that this is the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has put forward three Amendments which, in effect, make two alterations to the subsection. The first is to take out the conception that occupation must be full-time. That is a wise Amendment, partly for the reasons I have given,

and partly for the more important reason that his Amendment would eliminate most of lines 14 and 15 of Clause 15(3), and thereby eliminate the extraordinary assumption that such a young person, if I may quote the Finance Bill:
… intends to be regularly engaged in it or another such occupation.
For the reason I have given, that assumption has no foundation in fact.
This matter is very closely linked to the Amendment—from memory, I think it was No. 43—which I spoke to at the end of our proceedings last night. I invited special comment on it from the Chief Secretary, and he was courteous enough to give it. Amendment No. 43 —and this Amendment has much the same thought in mind—said, in effect, that if the savings income of the youth is, in practice, not available to the parents or parent for aggregation, it shall not be aggregated. As I said last night, this seems to me to be incontestable in law, logic and equity.
The Chief Secretary said that it was a new point to him and that he would consider it, presumably before Report. With respect, it is not a new point. It has been raised since the Budget on a number of occasions. It has been raised in the national Press. It has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), and it was raised by myself and others upstairs in relation to residence. If the people with whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South is concerned are part of the floating population, their income may well be in no way available for the family unit or, in particular, for the parent or parents whom they have left, either temporarily or permanently.
So I ask the Chief Secretary if he will take into his consideration of Amendment No. 43 the Amendments which are now before the House. The savings income may well be in no way available to the mother or the father, as the case may be, and, therefore, aggregation is both inequitable and, in practice, impossible. These Amendments greatly improve the subsection, and I very much hope that if we cannot screw anything further out of the Chief Secretary we will divide.

4.45 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: May I ask the Minister what the deletion of the words "a full-time" means in relation to the universities, which are, of course, educational institutions? Many students nowadays do other work during the vacation. Would I be right in thinking that the Clause covers income from that other work? Would the large grants that are given to students for their maintenance at university be aggregated? Can the Minister say whether education is a full-time occupation? The amount of maintenance given to students may be well over £300. In the case of someone with two children at university, if that is to be aggregated, it will be a serious matter for the person with whose income it is aggregated and also for the young person at university.

Mr. Diamond: No. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that his anxieties are baseless. What he refers to is not income, but assistance given to a university student which does not count as income for Income Tax purposes. There is no question of aggregation.

Sir E, Errington: Where is that to be found in the Bill?

Mr. Diamond: It does not need to be in the Bill, since it is not income in the first place.

Sir E. Errington: Not income? I am staggered to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not income. Of course it is income.

Mr. Diamond: I do not think that we need to get excited about it. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that it is not income for Income Tax purposes and that there is no intention to treat it as income for Income Tax purposes. There is, therefore, no question of aggregating it and regarding it as unearned income which, as the hon. Gentleman has no doubt noticed, is the kind of income which is subject to aggregation.
The hon. Gentleman has asked me whether full-time attendance at university is an occupation. He will have observed that "occupation" is defined in subsection (3) as
… any office, employment, trade, profession or vocation.
The answer is that it is not within one of those categories. Therefore, the un-

earned income of a young person undergoing full-time education at university will be aggregated with the parents' income.
May I turn now to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I recognise the connection, but I am bound to say that the discussion on these Amendments added nothing to our discussion on Amendment No. 43.
I did not say that it was a new point. I recognise that it was discussed upstairs in relation to having a better definition than "full-time occupation" for when a child ceases to be a member of the family unit. We were considering whether residence did not provide a better definition, and, in committee upstairs, I gave reasons why that would not work. I am sorry to have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he will not be able to screw anything further out of me on these Amendments but, naturally, what I said last night stands.

Mr. Michael Shaw: I apologise for not being present when the Chief Secretary addressed the Committee, although I hope that he will agree that my previous attendance has been good.
Arising out of the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), there is another matter which should be looked into further. Many industrial organisations take on young people for whom they see a bright future. They pay them a salary and put them to work full-time in their businesses for a year and then send them to a university on a full-time course, continuing to pay them their salaries. What is the state of any remuneration paid in such circumstances? Is it regarded as being for full-time education?

Mr. Diamond: I agree immediately that the hon. Gentleman was a most regular attendant on our proceedings upstairs, and I hope that he will not misunderstand me if I say that he attended almost too regularly. I say that to remind him that this point was considered upstairs, and there are a number of different circumstances which might arise. I invite him to refresh his memory by reading the reports of our proceedings in Standing Committee. However, I am


sure that he will realise that the income that he is discussing is earned income, and there is no question of aggregating it.
That Clause does not deal with full-time education. It deals with what is a full-time occupation. In the case of someone deliberately limiting himself to a week or a month in an occupation, followed by three months doing something else, followed by another deliberately limited period at a temporary job, those two periods being his only occupations in 12 months, they would be treated as two periods of full-time occupation. If they were regarded as taking the child concerned out of the provisions of aggregation, it would make a nonsense of the Clause.
We have the usual problem that arises in any tax administration. We are administering the tax for a whole year, and we have to have circumstances relevant to the whole year. To the whole year once the child has left school, one has to apply something more than his being in and out of occupations for a week at a time.

Mr. John Nott: In moving his Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) gave a very interesting example, and the Chief Secretary has not supplied a satisfactory answer. My hon. Friend cited the example of a young man who goes to a military academy, and suggested Sandhurst. It is intolerable to leave the position in a state where the Chief Secretary says that a parent has to negotiate the matter with the tax inspector. Who is running the country? Are tax inspectors to be placed in a position where they decide whether a parent sends his son to Sandhurst?
This is just as specific a case as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington).I

quite understand that there must be matters of detail in tax legislation which are subject to discussion with the Inland Revenue, but here is a clear and specific case. If a parent decides that his son will have a military career, and go to Sandhurst, will any income of the son be aggregated? It is quite unreasonable to suggest that the parent has to negotiate the matter with the tax inspector. That is not the way to leave legislation.

As the father of teenage children, my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is a far greater expert than I on the floating population which moves between Earl's Court and Notting Hill, but I support his claim that the Clause bears no relation to what goes on in real life. It is quite unrealistic to suggest that any teenage person can have an intention to be regularly engaged in work. This does not make sense to me. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but, having listened to this brief debate, I think that we ought not to leave the matter in this vacuous state before voting upon it.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) asked me whether the conditions of attending at Sandhurst are such as to come within the Clause. The answer is that they are. I am informed that, before going to Sandhurst, a student has to undertake to serve for a period of years. At the point of joining Sandhurst, it is clear that he intends to engage in a full-time occupation of the kind described in the Clause and, therefore, the aggregation of his unearned income with his parents' income will no longer apply.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 154, Noes 193.

Division No. 223.]
AYES
[4.57 p.m.


Astor, John
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)


Awdry, Daniel
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Burden, F. A.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Balniel, Lord
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Doughty, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Biffen, John
Channon, H. P. G.
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emery, Peter


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Clegg, Walter
Errington, Sir Eric


Black, Sir Cyril
Cooke, Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Blaker, Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Farr, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Costain, A. P.
Fortescue, Tim


Body, Richard
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Foster, Sir John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Gibson-Watt, David


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)




Glover, Sir Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Goodhart, Philip
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian


Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grant, Anthony
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Royle, Anthony


Grant-Ferris, R.
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lubbock, Eric
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grieve, Percy
MacArthur, Ian
Sharpies, Richard


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Shaw, Michael (Se'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Silvester, Frederick


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten Neil
Smith, John (London &amp; W'mlnster)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hawkins, Paul
Maxwelt-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor.Edward M.(C'gow,Cathcart)


Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper
Teeling, Sir William


Hirst, Gooffrey
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hordern, Peter
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hunt, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Iremonger, T. L.
Onslow, Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Ward, Dame Irene


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Webster, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pardoe, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Jopling, Michael
Peel, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kershaw, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Kimball, Marcus
Prior, J. M. L.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pym, Francis
Worsley, Marcus


Kirk, Peter
Bamsdcn, Rt. Hn. James



Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lane, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. Hector Monro and




Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Evane, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kenyon, Clifford


Anderson, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lawson, George


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Ledger, Ron


Barnes, Michael
Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Barnett, Joel
Fowler, Gerry
Lee, John (Reading)


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bidwell, Sydney
Calpern, Sir Myer
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bishop, E. S.
Garrett, W. E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourtay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Booth, Albert
Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Boston, Terence
Gregory, Arnold
McBride, Neil


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, Eddie
McCann, John


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanely)
MacColl, James


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamaton, James (Bothwell)
Macdonald, A. H.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackie, John


Cant, R. B.
Haseldine, Norman
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)


Coleman, Donald
Hazell, Bert
McNamara, J. Kevin


Concannon, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
MacPherson, Malcoim


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hilton, W. S.
Marquand, David


Crawshaw, Richard
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Maxwell, Robert


Cronin, John
Horner, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Crosaman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mendelson J.J.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howie, W.
Mikardo Ian


Davies, If or (Gower)
Hoy, James
MilIan Bruce


Dell, Edmund
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen. N.)
Milne Edward (Blyth)


Diamond, Rt Hn. John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Dickens, James
Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William


Dobson, Ray
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Moonman, Eric


Doig, Peter
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th&amp; C'b'e)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Moyle, Roland


Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Murray, Albert


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
O'MaiHy, Brian


Ellis, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oram, Albert E.


Ennals, David
Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas







Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tuck, Raphael


Owen, WHI (Morpeth)
Roebuck, Roy
Urwin, T. W.


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Varley, Eric C.


Paget, R. T.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Palmer, Arthur
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Ryan, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Park, Trevor
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Pavitt, Laurence
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
 Weitzman, David


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Short,Mrs.Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Silverman, Julius
Wllkins, W. A.


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Skeffington, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Price, William (Rugby)
Slater, Joseph
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Probert, Arthur
Small, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rankin, John
Snow, Julian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roes, Merlyn
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Winnick, David


Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Swain, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swingler, Stephen
Yates, Victor


Richard, Ivor
Taverne, Dick



Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Tinn, James
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Tomney, Frank
Mr.Charles Grey.

The Chairman: Last night, I promised the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that there would be a Division on Amendment No. 13, which has already been discussed.

Amendment proposed: No. 13, in page 11, line 17, at end insert:

(4) Tax shall not be charged by virtue of this section in respect of—
(a) any infant's income if such infant's income does not exceed five hundred pounds and in the case of income which exceeds that amount shall be charged only in respect of the excess; and

(b) any infant's income so far as the same is income arising under a settlement in relation to which some person other than a relative of the infant's parent is or was a settlor (' settlement' and ' settlor' here having the same meaning as in Chapter III of Part XVIII of the Income Tax Act 1952, and relative including a husband or wife, parent or remoter forebear, child or remoter issue, brother or sister).—[Mr. Richard Wainwright.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 154, Noes 193.

Division No. 224.]
AYES
[5.7 p.m.


Astor, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Jentrin, Patrick (Woodford)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Emery, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Balniel, Lord
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bell, Ronald
Eyre, Reginald
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Farr, John
Jopling, Michael *


Biffen, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Biggs-Davison, John
Fortescue, Tim
Kershaw, Anthony


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Foster, Sir John
Klmball, Marcus


Black, Sir Cyril
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Blaker, Peter
Cilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kirk Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Braine, Bernard
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grant) Anthony
LewiS, Kenneth (Rutland)


Buchanan-Smith,Allck(Angus,N&amp;M)
Grant-Ferris, R.
lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Grieve, Percy
Longden, Gilbert


Burden, F.A.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmuncrs)
MacArthur, Ian


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackenzie,Alasdarr(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert




Channon, H. P. G.
Hal, John (Woycombe)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Macleod, Ht. Hn. lain


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McMaster, Stanley


Cooke, Robert
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Marten, Neil


Corfield, F. V.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maude, Angus


Costain A. P.
Hawkins, Paul
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthome)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crouch, David
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Crowder, F. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Monro, Hector


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshlre,W.)
Hogg, Ht. Hn. Quintin
More, jasper


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hordern, Peter
Munroo-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Doughty, Charles
Hunt, John
Murton, Oscar




Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ridsdale, Julian
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Nott, John
Royle, Anthony
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Onslow, Cranley
Scott, Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walters, Dennis


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sharples, Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Webster, David


Pardoe, John
Silvester, Frederick
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Peel, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Pink, R. Bonner
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Speed, Keith
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Prior, J. M. L.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Pym, Francis
Tapsell, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Worsley, Marcus


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)



Renton, Rt Hn. Sir David
Teeling, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Eric Lubbock and




Mr. Richard Wainwright.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Albert


Anderson, Donald
Haseldine, Norman
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Hazell, Bert
Oram, Albert E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hilton, W. S.
Oswald, Thomas


Barnes, Michael
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Barnett, Joel
Horner, John
Owen, Will (Morpetn)


Beaney, Alan
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Howie, W.
Paget, R. T.


Bishop, E. S.
Hoy, James
Palmer, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, Trevor


Booth, Albert
Hunter, Adam
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Boston, Terence
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jeger, George (Goole)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Coleman, Donald
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Probert, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Crossman, lit. Hn. Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lawson, George
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dell, Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, John (Reading)
Rogers, George (Kensinton, N.)


Diamond, Rt Hn. John
Lesor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dickens, James

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dobson, Ray
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rayan, John


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyon, Alexander w.(York)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short,Mrs.Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, John
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Ennals, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Small, William


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Snow, Julian


Fitch, Aian (Wigan)
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swingler, Stephen


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Taverne, Dick


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Ceorge


Fowler, Gerry
Maxwell, Robert
Tinn, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher
Tomney, Frank


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, J. J.
Tuck, Raphael


Garrett, W. E.
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Gregory, Arnold
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Walker, Harold (Doncastsr)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Molloy, William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Griffiths, Eddie
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Weitzman, David


Hamilton, william (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitaker, Ben


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland
Wilkins, W, A.







Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Winnick, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Woof, Robert
Mr J. D Concannon and


Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Yates, Victor
Mr Charles Grey.


Wilson, William (Coventry. S.)

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put forthwith pursuant to Order [11th June]:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 188, Noes 151.

Division No. 225.]
AYES
[5.16 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Heffer, Eric S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Anderson, Donald
Hilton, W. S.
Paget, R. T.


Armstrong, Ernest
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Horner, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Park, Trevor


Barnes, Michael
Howie, W.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Barnett, Joel
Hoy, James
Pavitt, Laurence


Beaney, Alan
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Binns, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Bishop, E. S.
Hunter, Adam
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Blackburn, F.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, William (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Probert, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rankin, John


Boston, Terence
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rees, Meriyn


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Bradley, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Haw, S.)
Richard, lvor


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Judd, Frank
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Coleman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, w. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roebuck, Roy


Cronin, John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lawson George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Ledger, Ron
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ryan, John


Davies, lfor (Gower)
Lee, John (Reading)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Lestor Miss Joan
Sheldon, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)



Diamond, Rt Hn. John
 Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short, Mrs.Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Dickens, James
Lipton, Marcus
Sllkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dobson, Ray
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Slater, Joseph


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e) 
McCann, John
Small, William


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Snow, Julian


Edelman, Maurice
Macdonald, A.H.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, Mrs Margaret
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swingler, Stephen


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tinn James


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackie, John
Tomney, Frank


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, G.)
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara,J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Fietcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Varley, Eric G.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fowler, Gerry
Mendelson, J. J.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David (Consett)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Garrett, W. E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wellbeloved, James


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitaker, Ben


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Molloy, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Gregory, Arnold
Moorman, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Eddie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Winnick, David


Harper, Joseph
Murray, Albert
Woof, Robert


Harrison, Walter (Wakefietd)
O'Malley, Brian
Yates, Victor


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oswald, Thomas



Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hazell, Bert
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Mr. Charles Grey and




Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Astor, John
Balniel, Lord
Biggs-Davison, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n&amp; M'd'n)
Bell, Ronald
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel


Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Black, Sir Cyril


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Biffen, John
Blaker, Peter




Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborn, John (Halham)


Body, Richard
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peel, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Francis


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Channon, H. P. C.
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Chichester Clark, R.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Corfield, F. V.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharpies, Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Crouch, David
Kimg, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


Crowder, F. P.
Kirk, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshlre,W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington>


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Doughty, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow,Cathcart)


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Teeling, Sir William


Emery, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Errington, Sir Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Eyre, Reginald
Mackenzie,Alasdarr(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek


Foster, Sir- John
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Cibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Cresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grieve, Percy
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Worsley, Marcus


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Jasper More and


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John
Mr. Anthony Grant.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9

LIFE POLICIES, LIFE ANNUITY CONTRACTS AND CAPITAL REDEMPTION POLICIES

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 163, in page 64, line 8, after ' term ', to insert:
'or a series of capital sums payable on or after death and until the expiry of a specified term such specified term'.

The Chairman: With this Amendment we are taking Amendments No. 164, page 64, line 29, after ' term ' insert:
'or a series of capital sums payable on or after death and until the expiry of a specified term such specified term'.
No. 165, page 64, line 36, after 'or' insert:
'the same or a different capital sum payable'.
No. 166, page 66, line 11, at end insert:
(iv) Reduction of premium policies.
5A. Where a policy issued under a scheme of participation in profits provides for the

premium to be reduced after a fixed term of not less than seven years instead of bonuses added to the sum assured and the total premiums payable in any period of twelve months does not exceed twice the amount of the total premiums payable in any other such period during the fixed term it is a qualifying policy notwithstanding that it complies only in part with the conditions specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
No. 167, page 69, line 2, after ' gain' insert:
'or a loss as the case may be '.
No. 169, page 72, line 7, at end insert:
17. The Commissioners shall approve a special policy notwithstanding that it does not fully satisfy all the conditions applicable to-a qualifying policy, provided that they are satisfied that such special policy would have been a qualifying policy but for certain provisions contained therein which though conflicting with the provisions of this Schedule only do so to an immaterial or trivial extent.

Mr. Jenkin: As I was fairly heavily involved in dealing with this Schedule and Clause 16 in Committee, it was suggested that it might save time if I were


to move the Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friends. I understand that the rules of the House are such that one's name does not have to be to an Amendment in order to move it.
Schedule 9 seeks to implement the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring to an end the enjoyment of life assurance relief and the exemption from Surtax on the proceeds of what are loosely called single premium policies. The Schedule contains a large number of new rules with which insurance policies must comply if they are to fall within the description of "a qualifying policy" referred to in Clause 16 and the Schedule. These rules are detailed, complex and, in many respects, as the Bill was originally drafted, highly restrictive.
It was difficult to reconcile the Schedule as it was presented to the House with the intention expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced this part of his Budget. He said:
I say at once that I have no desire to weaken the tax position of legitimate life assurance or endowment schemes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 290–1.]
We debated the Schedule at some length in Committee, and I am happy to say that the Government were most forthcoming. They accepted some of our Amendments as drafted. They accepted the principle of others and undertook to table suitable Amendments on Report. They were sympathetic with others and said that they would consider them between the Committee and Report stages. On yet other Amendments, they said that they were fairly sure that the Bill was all right but that they would look at it again. The Committee was impressed with two things: the very fair and open-minded attitude adopted by the Financial Secretary and the Minister of State to the matters which we drew to their attention; and with the astonishing rigidity of the Schedule as it was drawn. The comment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) as to what would have happened if the Schedule had been guillotined, not surprisingly, received no answer.
We are content to leave for the Report stage most of the matters which we raised and which the Government are considering again, but there were a few Amend-

ments which we thought it would be appropriate to air for a few minutes on recommittal. These are Amendments which were not selected in Committee. I make absolutely no complaint about that. The Chairman was more than generous in his selection. However, he felt that enough Amendments had been selected already.
One Amendment was selected and debated, but the Minister of State was most unhopeful, although he had sympathy with the point, that a way would be found of drafting an Amendment to take account of our point. It was therefore rejected and we thought it right to return to the matter at this stage in order to demonstrate its importance. I express to you, Sir Eric, our thanks for having chosen these Amendments for discussion on recommittal.
I will deal, first, with Amendment No. 163, with which Amendment No. 164 goes. These two Amendments were not selected in Standing Committee A. They relate to what is described in the Schedule, and is often referred to in the insurance world, as "term assurance". They seek to amend paragraphs 1(3) and 1(4) of Schedule 9.
5.30 p.m.
Paragraph 1(3) deals with a term assurance which is intended to last longer than 10 years. It provides that, to be a qualifying policy, there must be regular payment of premiums over a reasonably even spread. The details are spelt out. I need not weary the Committee with them.
Paragraph 1(4) deals with term assurance where the term is less than 10 years. In that event, the only restriction imposed is that in the event of the surrender of the policy before it has run its period, the surrender payment should be no larger than the aggregate of the premiums which have been paid thereunder.
These two paragraphs refer to term assurance in these words:
If the policy secures a capital sum payable on death occurring during a specified term …
In our view, and the view of those in the insurance world, this is altogether too narrow. It does not take account of a generally employed form of insurance policy, the family income benefits policy, where a series of lump sums are payable over a period of time, perhaps up to the


termination of the term for which the policy was originally expressed, or up to any other date written into the policy. This is a popular policy and meets the needs of insurers in a large number of cases. As the Bill stands, I understand that this form of policy could not be taken out so as to qualify for relief. Yet, in my view, it most assuredly ought to be provided for, and Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 deal with that matter.
Amendment No. 165 deals with endowment assurances in paragraph 2 of Schedule 9. Here again, the possible benefit has been too rigidly circumscribed. Endowment assurance is an assurance where the sum becomes payable not on death, but on some other event, or with an alternative of a payment on some other event. The kind of case that we have in mind, with which we feel that paragraph 2 ought to deal is special mortgage protection policies. Hon. Members who were on Standing Committee A will know that Clause 16 contains a broad general exclusion for mortgage protection policies, because they are a special animal which should not have to comply with all the requirements of the Schedule. They are narrowly defined to mortgage protection. We had an undertaking that this was probably too narrow, and we may find other words substituted on Report. But there could be mortgage protection policies which should not qualify for that blanket exclusion, but which would be qualifying policies provided they complied with the requirements of Schedule 9.
We are here talking about
… a capital sum payable either on survival for a specified term or on earlier death…
In some cases these policies provide not for the payment of a capital sum payable either on survival or on earlier death, but different sums. The sums may be paid by instalments. The normal building society mortgage provides that the sums should be payable half-yearly, or indeed more frequently.
The words which we suggest should be added to the Bill in Amendment No. 165 are:
the same or a different capital sum payable on earlier death.
This is a small Amendment. I do not believe that it strikes in any way at the roots of the main purpose of the Schedule. It is a necessary Amendment

in order that the legislation should not frustrate perfectly genuine life assurance relief.
Amendment No. 166 is directed to a special kind of policy, to which we referred in Standing Committee A, the declining premium policy, where the bonuses earned by the policy during its life are applied not to add to the policy monies, but to reduce the premium in the latter years of its life. On 22nd May, in Standing Committee A, I quoted a passage from a letter from one of the life offices describing what the policy was about. It is probably simpler to refer to that letter again to put the matter before the Committee. The letter reads:
We are especially concerned over the Reduction of Premium Policy which has been issued without any material change in the basic principle ever since the Association was founded in 1806. It is a unique contract unmatched by any other company and of such long standing that it can hardly be said to have been devised with tax avoidance in mind.
Briefly, the policy is a with-profits contract which participates in profits by way of reduction of the premiums payable as opposed to the addition of a reversionary bonus.
A level premium is payable during the first seven years. In the eighth and subsequent years the premium is reduced by the rate per cent. declared by the Directors for that year. The reductions continue until the rate of reduction reaches 100 per cent. when the premium is extinguished and no further premiums are payable. Thereafter, declared 'reductions' are added annually to the policy and accumulated as a cash benefit.
Clearly, any policy on those lines is bound to come into conflict with the basic rules written into the Schedule about the reasonably even spread of premiums. The difficulty which the Minister of State saw about this was that it could lead to great loopholes if the general were so altered that it would comprise a special policy of this kind. The hon. Gentleman said:
But there is the very great difficulty, which I hope hon. Members opposite will understand, of not altering the provisions of the paragraph in such a way that there is a very wide loophole that would be very widely explored."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1968, Standing Committee A; c. 1232.]
I interpreted the Minister as saying that, though he was sympathetic, he did not think it possible to amend the Schedule so as to comprise this type of policy, of which tens of thousands must have been issued over the period since they have been in practice. Therefore, we thought it right to see whether it is


not possible to deal with this as a special policy. Amendment No. 166 seeks to add to the Schedule new paragraph 5A relating to reduction of premium policies.
We have adopted the solution of taking the term of the policy and, where one has a minimum term of seven years, as was described in the passage from the letter I read, writing that into the Clause as one of the conditions enabling the policy to be a qualifying policy. I am happy to say that the case which the Minister put as a possible loophole if the matter were dealt with generally was recognised by the company concerned which wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and said:
I think there must be a minimum term for the full premiums otherwise the way would be open for large first premiums. Some of the Bill's restrictions must apply to the full premium period otherwise there will be innumerable loopholes.
I quote that to demonstrate again, if it needs demonstrating, that those who deal with these matters in the world outside— the life offices, the various constituent companies, and other organisations—are anxious that they should not be thought to be trying to leave loopholes for tax evaders. They take a very responsible attitude to these matters, and I hope that this Amendment, too, will attract the support and sympathy of the Financial Secretary.
I come, now, to an Amendment which is regarded by the life offices as very important, and again one which was not selected in Committee. I am referring to Amendment No. 167, and with this we come to the paragraph which deals with the charge to Surtax where the policy is a non-qualifying one. The general rule is that if a policy does not qualify the excess of the policy moneys over the total premiums paid comes into charge for Surtax. The rationale is simple to understand, namely, that the income which has accrued in tie life company's hands has been subject to Income Tax, and there has also been Capital Gains Tax on the investment, but there has been no Surtax, and therefore if the policy holder is a high Surtax payer this is a way of getting an accretion to his wealth without a charge to Surtax.
That being so there must be a case for the allowance where there has been a

loss on a policy, and the case comprehended by the Amendment is where, for instance, two policies are surrendered at the same time. Qualifying policies do not give rise to any difficulty, because there we are not concerned with Surtax, but if two policies which do not qualify are surrendered simultaneously, the one which shows a gain will be Surtaxable, while the other, as the Bill stands, will receive no relief if there is a loss. Surtax is paid on the gain, but to the loss is carried by the policy holder. I cannot believe that that is the right way to approach the matter.
The normal rules relating to losses for Income Tax and everything else are that a balance is struck between gains and losses, and the result is the figure which represents the sum on which taxation is charged. I cannot believe that it is right to tax the gains and to leave the losses unrelieved.
Finally, I come to the last of the group of Amendments, Amendment No. 169, and in some ways this is perhaps the most important of the lot. Here we are introducing new and admittedly complex provisions which, whether the Government like it or not, are bound to have a material influence on the general shape and development of life assurance over the years ahead.
The tax reliefs given to those who pay premiums on genuine life insurance— Income Tax relief, and freedom from Surtax on the proceeds—are extremely valuable. Although many policies do not qualify for those reliefs, even as the law stands, nevertheless the great attraction of life assurance as a vehicle for saving is that for many years these tax reliefs have been enjoyed. The Government's intention is that for genuine life assurance they should continue to be enjoyed, but the new restrictions included in the 9th Schedule are of a complex nature indeed. The debates in Committee upstairs—and indeed what I have been saying today— showed that there must be many matters which, with the best will in the world, the Government's advisers have not thought of, and are therefore likely to cause grave difficulties until they are put right in subsequent legislation.
In Committee we discussed two Amendments related to the point at issue here. Both Amendments aimed at giv-


ing the Government room for manoeuvre where a policy broadly complied with the restrictions but where there might be some small extent to which it conflicted with the letter of the law as it will when Schedule 9 becomes law. We moved an Amendment about variations on policies, the purpose of which was to exempt insignificant variations. The Financial Secretary accepted it and undertook to introduce an Amendment on Report. He said:
I shall undertake to amend so as to define variations in a way that will restrict the variations to those of substance and not to trifling variations of no real materiality."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd May, 1968; c. 1288.]
The second Amendment included a paragraph aimed at giving the Government some power of dispensation where there were insubstantial variations from what would otherwise have qualified under the Schedule, but there the Minister of State took a different view. He misconstrued what his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had said earlier. He told us that an undertaking had been given "to look at" the earlier Amendment. In fact, as I have said, the Financial Secretary undertook to table an Amendment. The Minister of State refused even to consider the suggestion that there should be some sort of locus penitentiae, some room for dispensation in the case of minor infractions of what would otherwise be a qualifying policy under Schedule 9. He said:
… there would be considerable danger that if this discretion were granted all sorts of schemes would be launched as a try-on to see whether the Revenue would treat them as special policies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd May, 1968; c. 1308.]
He went on to argue that this would lead to an immense amount of extra work for the Revenue, and give rise to great uncertainty.
I believe that the Minister of State took an unduly pessimistic view of the prospects if the Amendment were accepted. However, we have taken his point and redrafted the paragraph to make it apply to a lesser category of cases. The paragraph now contains the phrase:
… though conflicting with the provisions of this Schedule only do so to an immaterial or trivial extent.
We have had experience of legislation which has been drawn in an exact form

and which the Revenue has felt bound to interpret strictly in accordance with the language employed by Parliament in the Statute. Indeed, that is the duty of the Revenue, and I make no complaint about it, but it imposes on us an important duty to make sure that if we want to give room for manoeuvre our legislation is not drawn in too tight and circumscribed a form.
One objection raised to the earlier Amendment was that it would give the Revenue a discretion. We said that the Revenue may grant a dispensation. We have dealt with that, and now we say that where there is a case of a trivial or insignificant variation the Commissioners shall approve the special policy. I believe that that is right. If the exemption comes within the paragraph as drawn, it should be mandatory on the Commissioners to allow the policy to qualify. The life offices give great weight to this Amendment, because the Revenue cannot be sure of having taken every possible variation into account. It is of the highest importance that Parliament does not put life assurance into a straitjacket which will affect the immensely valuable rôle which the movement performs in attracting savings and channelling them into investment.
I repeat what I said in Committee about the enormous importance of life assurance to the economy. In 1967, £750 million of new savings were generated through the life assurance movement—the biggest single form of savings in the country. This is why we insist, and, mostly, the Government accept, that it is desperately important that nothing done in this Bill should affect these savings. The economy depends, as we have been told so often, on an increased flow of savings. The more we save, the less the Government have to raise in taxation. I beg the hon. Gentleman to look sympathetically at all the Amendments, but particularly at the last.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), because this has been the least acrimonious, if the most complex, aspect of the Bill. I have been filled with admiration at his complete mastery of the complex details and Amendments with which we have


dealt, and it has been a source of great assistance to me in discharging my duty, as I have seen it, on this part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not the team of skilled assistants practised in this matter that I have, so I unstintingly compliment him on presenting his arguments in a way as knowledgeable as it was sympathetic, and which has enabled me to meet him wherever possible.
If there be any friend of life assurance companies and similar institutions in their lawful avocations, I would say to him that my affection, regard and respect for these great institutions is no less than his. If, then, that friend demand why I am arguing the case for these restrictions, my answer must be that I believe that it puts life assurance on a firmer and sounder footing if we have, instead of a number of gentlemen's agreements to which not every life assurance company is a party, certain sound and clear rules acceptable to the Revenue and, basically, to the companies, which remove any uncertainty about which policies can be regarded as normal and reasonable and not tainted in the smallest degree with any charge of tax avoidance.
The provisions are not intended to be, and are not, in the least penal. In seeking to eliminate the area of unacceptable tax advantages gained by some taxpayers, we have not removed the immense advantages which accrue to taxpayers by insuring themselves in this way, including many significant tax advantages not merely in terms of tax concessions on premiums but in other ways.
I hope that the Committee will be aware that no hon. Member is more anxious than I to preserve intact the flourishing, growing, socially desirable— more than that: socially necessary— work of these great institutions. I would not knowingly support any measure which would damage their work and I have tried to take that approach up to now. If, between now and Report, anyone can press upon me any example of a failure by us to take into account the reasonable needs of the life assurance companies, I will consider it, even to the last moment.
These Amendments do not all present much difficulty. Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 are, in effect, drafting Amendments. The hon. Gentleman, despite my

tributes to his mastery of this matter, seems to believe that clarification of what we all intended and for which he argued should be made. I accept his case. Our view is simply that the words would already achieve his purpose, while he thinks that we should make assurance doubly sure by clarifying them. If he and his hon. Friends would withdraw the Amendment, I am prepared, because I see no reason why we should not, to table an official Amendment on Report to remove any doubt as to the purport.
On Amendment No. 165, also, we think that the words proposed are not required, but I understand that there is some feeling that this is not absolutely sure. Again, rather than leave anyone in uncertainty or doubt about our intentions, I will meet the hon. Gentleman and put that down. There is no reason why people should carry unnecessary anxieties; it is bad enough when one has to inflict necessary ones upon them.
A more troublesome matter is Amendment No. 166, which deals with the case of a particular life policy which has been going for over 160 years, since 1806, and with which I am very reluctant to interfere. The difficulty is this. We have set the rules as simply and reasonably as we could, and one of them is that, within the qualifying ten years, no premium should be more than twice any other. Unfortunately, in this policy, after the seventh year, the premium begins to decline, and could conceivably be less than half the premium in previous years. Unhappily, with the best will in the world and starting from the principle that I must put the Revenue to a good deal of trouble rather than the citizen to a little trouble, I find that here we should have to make a significant breach of this basic principle to accommodate this ancient policy.
The policy could be brought within the rule by a variation so slight that I hardly imagine that it would affect its commercial impact, although it might affect its aesthetic appeal to the company which has had it for so long—and I sympathise with it. Unhappily, therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, not because I dissent from what my hon. Friend said previously—there is no question of avoidance here; this is a perfectly reputable policy—but because we have to rule by


general principles and the principle must be preserved that no premium can be less than half a previous premium.
Therefore, the Amendment cannot be accepted, but I assure the Committee that it is open to the company concerned, by deferring the initial decrease in its premiums until the eighth or ninth years instead of the seventh, as hitherto, to bring about conformity to our rules and bring the policy within them. It is a very small matter for the company, and, although I have started from the sympathetic wish to accommodate it even at the expense of our rules, I have not been able to find any way without a fundamental departure from the rules.
Therefore, despite my genuine sympathy, I must ask the company to make the trifling variation which I understand that it would accept, and which would have no commercial effect on its dealings in this policy.
6.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford rightly regards the principle of Amendment 169 as important. This proposal is intended to give discretion to the Inland Revenue, but in fact it would impose a mandatory obligation on it and it would, in effect, have to make up its mind whether or not to fight a case should anyone challenge its supposed mandatory obligation. This is not acceptable, first because I do not in principle like legislation the effect of which is to set out rules for qualifying policies and then to say, "Something not far from that will do." That is a blurred form of definition. We should not, on the one hand, say, these are the rules to be observed for a policy to qualify and go on to say, "If, however, there is a minor variation, it will still qualify." To pass legislation of this kind would place an impossible burden on the Revenue, since it would have to look at every scheme submitted to it and then, on a writ of mandamus, decide whether or not there was a trivial variation. That should not be invoked as a style of legislation, except when absolutely necessary.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Perhaps I did not explain this fully enough. The hon. Gentleman should remember that Section 379 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, relating to superannuation benefit schemes, sets out the exact considerations with which a scheme must comply if it is to

get relief, but goes on in subsection (3) to say, in effect, that any scheme which does not comply may nevertheless be approved, providing it complies with a number of other considerations. There are many other matters in which the Revenue has discretion. The Amendment is, therefore, not a novelty.

Mr. Lever: As I explained, I would accept this sort of discretionary variation only where the circumstances of the case were absolutely compelling. In principle, one must be against it because one wants hard and fast definitions. Where possible, we should define these matters accurately and clearly. There are exceptions, and from his vast knowledge of these matters the hon. Gentleman has selected one concerning the approval of superannuation schemes.
The point to remember here is that we are not dealing with a mass of unskilled people preparing policies but with a relatively small number of skilled insurance companies. There is, therefore, no danger of an accidental variation in a policy occurring; one would not, by accident, be saddled with a policy in which there is a trivial variation. The insurance companies, which have maintained excellent relations with the Inland Revenue on these matters—we are happy to cooperate and help them whenever possible —will, before issuing these policies, satisfy themselves that they are qualifying policies.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there might be a danger of a variation occurring. I have explained that we are dealing with insurance companies which are skilled in preparing these policies and which are checking them with the Inland Revenue to see if there is the smallest doubt. This is bound to be done before they are issued to the public in their tens of thousands. This would seem a reasonable precaution; and if there is a trivial error to which attention is drawn, it can be put right before the policies are circulated.
The alternative is to leave the Revenue liable to have shot at it minor variations in schemes. I will not repeat the argument which was used in Committee, although it related to a somewhat different Amendment. While I am enthusiastic for every statement made by my colleagues, my degrees of enthusiasm vary


according to the statement. I would not say that the approach adopted to this problem would have sprung to my mind. While the insurance companies would not set out to cause difficulty, if they were allowed the power to submit to the Revenue any sort of variation and ask, "Is this trivial?" and the Revenue replied, "No", the Revenue would then be liable in the High Court for deciding such trivialities.
The rules which we are instituting for qualifying policies are singularly clear and are not complex. In any event, happily, the insurance companies are as erudite as the Revenue in dealing with this delicate question and they know what is required to comply with the rules. Partly due to the efforts of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Wood-ford and partly because of the spirit of co-operation on the part of the Inland Revenue, every effort has been made in our discussions to satisfy the life offices that none of their business will be harmed in the slightest by these rules
That being the case, and the rules being clearly understood—and remembering that these policies are issued by professionals—I cannot see that a case has been made out for encumbering the Statute and the Inland Revenue with this obligation to meet applications for variations.
Amendment 167 deals with losses. There is a misconception here in connection with the reason for applying Surtax to certain non-qualifying policies. If the man is not a Surtax payer then he will not pay Surtax on the policy. That is not tautologous, since while a man might take out a £10,000 policy, he will not suddenly become liable to Surtax even if it is a Surtaxable policy; we will "top slice" the £10,000 and a non-Surtax payer will not pay Surtax. The reason why we Surtax is the reason why I must reject the Amendment; that when a Surtax payer has a Surtaxable policy— if the principle of the Clause is accepted —the capital would have been Surtaxed income. If he is in that category, then he must pay the Surtax, whether or not he has lost money on any other policy that he has ever taken out.
The two matters are not in relation, although at first there seems a plausible case for saying that if a man has lost

money on one policy he should be allowed to set it off against the Surtax to which he is liable on another. Although plausible, it does not stand up to examination because the two matters are not necessarily alike. A man is asked to pay Surtax on Surtaxable income, and in this case he is asked to pay Surtax on what should have been Surtaxable income. It appears in his pocket as a capital sum.
What he loses on a policy could be any amount. One would need to go into all the combinations of policy on which a man could lose to see if it had any relationship to a loss of income. One can set against one's plus amount for Surtax purposes not a low return on money but the actual loss of income on an investment in any period. It does not follow that because one loses money in an insurance matter, one has what would be the equivalent of a loss chargeable against one's Surtaxable income. In these circumstances, while the Amendment is fair-sounding and plausible, I must reject it because it does not stand up to examination. If a man happens to lose money on a policy, which is a rare event, that has no relationship whatever to his Surtaxable income.
I test it finally in this way. I appeal to the hon. Member, who is very fair-minded in these matters. If the loss of a policy is to be treated as the equivalent of something which one sets off against Surtaxable income, the Amendment does not go far enough. The hon. Member should claim the right to set it off against any other Surtaxable income. It is such a loss as would under our present legislation morally be justified to be set off against a man's Surtax liability. That is the only kind of loss which one could be entitled to be set off against this income.
If a man has a loss which stands up as a relief against Surtax income he would get it against his policy Surtax just as against any other Surtax, but that is not a loss which would come through a loss of a policy. In those circumstances I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Nott: I am, naturally, interested to hear the Financial Secretary's answer to Amendments Nos. 163 and 164. I felt quite certain that the Government


would not introduce any type of a bar or disability on family income benefit policies, because, clearly, those policies are now increasingly used by the young salariat to protect their family against the death of the breadwinner.
I have one or two questions to ask on the hon. Gentleman's summing up in connection with Amendment No. 166. This is on the reduction of premium policies. Going the other way for a moment, what would happen in the case of a policy which might be taken out by a young man who has just started work? He takes out a whole life policy at the low premium of, say, £50 per annum and in that whole life policy there is an option to convert, say, in five years, into an endowment policy without another medical examination. That is quite a common type of policy. I had one myself at one stage.
When a young man starts earning often his income is not adequate to enable him to pay the full premiums for an endowment policy but he can go for a whole life policy. In that case the premiums often treble when the conversion from a whole life policy to an endowment policy takes place. I do not ask the Financial Secretary necessarily to answer now, but if this is not covered perhaps it could be looked into.
What happens in the case of a five-year endowment policy which again might be taken out by a 20-year old man who wants to provide for his children's education. This may have been discussed in Committee. There are instruments which are broadly known as educational policies and very often they are not very satisfactory. A much better way of providing for a child's education is often by a five-year endowment policy where the capital sum becomes available five years after the first premium is paid. I hope that that comes within the Amendment and if not I should like the Financial Secretary to bear it in mind.
Another type of policy which is very common for young people is an indemnity policy which the building societies often require from a person who is purchasing a house on a mortgage for the first time. That person may not have quite sufficient savings to make the down payment required for the mortgage. The insurance company may demand 25 per cent. down and 75 per cent. of the total

value of the property would be advanced in the form of a mortgage. If that young chap of 20 has not quite enough to pay the initial down payment he is able to go to a building society and take out a policy which indemnifies the building society against his premature death.
6.15 p.m.
As I read the Bill, this is nothing more than a single premium policy because a single capital sum is paid at the time when the young man goes to buy his house. This may be covered in the Bill. It is very common policy for those not able to afford the full down payment when they wish to buy a £3,000 semidetached house and the building society says that it wants a single premium indemnity.
I do not wholly agree with the Financial Secretary's general point about variation of policies. Our life assurance industry has grown up through its ability to tailor policies to individual needs. It would be a shame if the Clauses and Schedules of this year's Finance Bill drew too narrowly the type of policy which could be issued in the future precisely because the constant variation and flexibility of life insurance from which we have benefited so much in the past would cease.
It is fair to say that we might not have had a family income benefit policy today if a Finance Bill of this sort had been passed 10 years ago, because I do not suppose the Chancellor could then have foreseen the growth of family income policies. It is more than probable that such a Budget could have put a liability on mortgage protection policies, where again there has been a substantial growth to the benefit of the wage and salary earner.
I have some doubt whether the Bill might not be unduly restrictive on the development of life assurance in future. I am grateful that the Financial Secretary is amenable, willing to help and generous in his understanding of the very real concern which we on this side of the Committee have. I have no doubt that in the few days before Report he will think of some of these matters and perhaps incorporate them in further Amendments; if that proves to be necessary.

Mr. Harold Lever: I will relieve the hon. Member's mind as quickly as possible of doubt. A five-year endowment


policy for education will not be exempt, but, of course, if the man is not a Sur-taxpayer that will not make very much difference to him, because he will receive the money tax-free. It is only the Surtax-payer who will be liable to the Surtax provisions. He may lose the reliefs, but the real question is whether he has to pay Surtax.
On the whole-life policy being converted to an endowment policy, if the endowment policy which is then taken out conforms to the rules laid down in the Clause it will be in order, and no problem will arise. If not, not. So that an endowment policy should have tax relief and freedom for Surtax liability, that endowment policy should be within certain rules. It follows that one cannot by a side wind escape from those rules by having a whole-life policy converted to an endowment policy which does not conform to the rules. So long as it conforms to the rules, it is exempt.

Mr. Nott: This may be the same policy —a whole-life policy is converted as the same policy into an endowment policy involving the trebling of the premium. The hon. Gentleman says that that is quite all right?

Mr. Lever: One can quadruple, quintuple, decuple, or multiply a thousandfold the premium, provided that the policy is for the first time an endowment policy within the meaning of the legislation. One can do what one likes so long as it conforms in the new policy to the rules laid down for endowment policies.
The further point was on mortgage indemnity. The kind of situation which the hon. Member mentioned is covered. If it is a policy intended to secure the payment of the mortgage debt, or thereabouts, on the man's death, it is free from all liability. That is the purpose of the policy.
The hon. Gentleman complained that if we had enacted this Bill years ago without the power to vary we would be in difficulties today. I do not think that this is so. The principles applied would have taken into account every reasonable case. We are dealing with a vast number of companies with immense experience. They are liable to think up something new, but when they think up

something new it has to be within these principles. If the variation is so trifling as not to be worth exempting there cannot be great difficulty in accommodating it to the rules which are sound in principle.
If the hon. Gentleman says that a wholly new kind of policy might come into being, which would not be within the rules at all, this Amendment would not meet that point. If we have not covered by our rules one of the special kinds of policy which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it would require new legislation to bring it within the rules and it could not be said to be a trifling variation. It would be a wholly new idea and if the Revenue did its work properly it would introduce amending legislation to put the matter into order.
One of the difficulties is that when we legislate, and if something outside the legislation comes in, it cannot be accommodated by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and the only remedy the House has if for any reason our legislation goes out of date is to act more promptly than we sometimes do.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I thank the Financial Secretary, first for his kind remarks about my own part in this, which has not been so great, and, secondly, for the attitude which he made clear once again in the Committee of the whole House, as he did upstairs, of the basic desire of the Government not to interfere with general life assurance. I can assure him that these will be taken at their face value by those who are concerned with assurance affairs outside the House.
I must go on to say—and this is the point which the Financial Secretary has closed on—that we are not all-knowing in this. Certainly we do not, when we are legislating, take account merely of the established channels of communication and established institutions who are acting in a particular field. We must always have regard to the fact that many of the most valuable innovations come from what may loosely be described as the invader.

Mr. Harold Lever: The point I made to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend was that if one brings in a variable innovation that cannot be regarded as a trivial matter that could not be brought within the Amendment even if I accepted it.

Mr. Jenkin: I concede that.
In drawing up this Amendment we had in mind something which would fit in roughly with the insignificant variation Amendment which the Government accepted upstairs. I do not think that this necessarily detracts from the general thesis. Indeed, he was perhaps unwittingly echoing what had been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who has long experience in these matters. We do not know that we are covering every possibility.
I was told the other day that even now possibilities are coming to life which had thought to be dealt with. I know the hon. Gentleman's advisers are in regular contact with the organisations outside, but the concept of the invader who can come in from outside in the sense of a rogue elephant—I do not want to reflect upon his integrity—are often most valuable in livening up and introducing innovations into a field which can easily become dominated by established interests. It is most important, in these circumstances, particularly here—and I emphasise, once again, where the whole economy depends so much on the attraction of saving from the people through life assurance—that nothing we do here in Parliament out of a desire to check tax avoidance should cast any unnecessary obstacles in the way of that.
The Financial Secretary indicated the hope that everything had been dealt with and the hope that if it had not the Government would be prepared to legislate swiftly to put the matter right.

Mr. Harold Lever: Certainly, it was not my intention to say that except in so far as the Report stage was concerned. I hope that we have taken into account even future developments which are likely to occur, though I cannot pretend to know what they might be. If we have not taken into account unknowable and unknown future developments, it is the obligation of the Government to legislate swiftly.

Mr. Jenkin: I had not intended to say anything more. The language I used might have been open to misinterpretation. I would not wish to commit the hon. Gentleman to anything that he did not wish to be committed to.
On the Surtax Amendment, I am bound to say that I found his argument very unconvincing, which is strange coming from him. This is not a normal Surtax provision. His argument that if the logic were right the Amendment did not go far enough, and that we should have to make allowance for every insurance policy which shows a loss as computed in accordance with the Schedule, is not right. He himself has said that what we are doing is applying Surtax to what is, in effect, a capital receipt. We are not surtaxing income; we are applying Surtax according to a special formula to something to which it would not otherwise be applicable, namely, to the increase in value of a policy proceeds over the aggregate of premiums paid to secure those proceeds.
This is a highly artificial transaction. We have not voted against it. The general desire to prevent people getting tax relief for single premium policies is something we have gone along with, but it surely follows that when there is a transaction of the same sort, namely, an insurance policy which on the same rules of computation, artificial though they are, gives rise to a loss it must be right to strike a balance and only tax the difference.
It may be that our Amendment goes too far and does not draw the distinction about policies which arise at the same time or in the same year. Where a policy has had to be surrendered according to the terms of the policy and there has been a loss, and in the same year one has surrendered another policy and shown a gain, I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman regards it as taking an unfair advantage that one should set off one against the other. This seems to be an immensely logical suggestion we are putting up and I am sorry that the Financial Secretary thought it necessary to reject it.

Mr. Harold Lever: Can I try again to win the hon. Gentleman to an understanding of the position? What is being taxed is Surtax which is at present, as it were, received in the form of capital. The purpose of this Clause is, in effect, to undress that from its capital dress, which is a dressing artificially created by the concession we are giving on insurance policies, and to bring it out in its effect as crude surtaxable income. That is why the hon. Gentleman did not vote against the


proposal. We should surtax as surtaxable income what is, in fact, surtaxable income, though it appears in the guise of capital.
Once one concedes that that is a legitimate undressing procedure undertaken by the Inland Revenue, in which one brings this capital sum back into its true form for legal purposes as surtaxable income, the only thing one can allow against that charge is a loss of a character which would properly be chargeable in diminution of surtaxable assessment.
6.30 p.m.
I will give an example. If one had a trading loss which could be set off against surtax, that would be appropriate, and so one could set it off under the law as it will stand under the Bill. If I accepted the hon. Gentleman's proposal, he would be able to set off, against what is truly surtaxable income on the analysis I have offered, what is nothing more or less than a capital loss.
I give another example—although I am thinking on my feet and am unprepared for it. Suppose I have two policies, one which will be allowable to Surtax in due time and another which, for some reason, after paying one premium, I surrender at the loss of the whole of the premium. The whole of the loss on the first policy, on which I claim to have sustained a loss allowable against my Surtaxable later receipt, is nothing more or less than a capital loss. I have taken out the policy I wanted and within a year have packed it up and made a loss on the premium.
That loss is undoubtedly a capital loss, nothing less, and should not be set off against any form of Surtaxable income. Once one concedes that the only income we are to tackle under this policy is Surtaxable income, one must insist that the only losses one can set off against it are losses appropriate for surtaxable income and they are already taken care of.

Mr. Nott: Why should it be a greater sin to offset surtaxable income so that it results in a capital aggregate at the time of maturity of the policy, and not a sin in the eyes of the Government to do a similar thing with non-Surtaxable income? What is the philosophical justification for treating these two types of income differently?

Mr. Lever: Would the hon. Gentleman repeat the question? I did not take it all in?

Mr. Nott: I would rather not repeat it.

Mr. Lever: These are two different types of income. We are not here dealing with the two types, but only with one —that is to say, Surtaxable income which appears in the form of a capital receipt. The hon. Gentleman cannot show me any other kind of income. What he can show is a capital loss of some kind sustained on an insurance policy, and it is that capital loss which it is hoped should be set off against what is truly Surtaxable income, although not appearing in that form.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I think that we must bring the debate to a close. The hon. Gentleman is engaging in sophistry which is untypical of him. It would be more typical of the Chief Secretary. He takes the capital sum if it is profit and converts into notional income and taxes it. But if it is a loss, he leaves it as capital and refuses to allow it to give relief against Surtax. It seems unfair. However, he has been kind enough to accept in principle most of the Amendments we have put in this group, and it would be wrong to seek to divide the House on the matter. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, That this Schedule be the 9th Schedule to the Bill, put forthwith pursuant to Order [11th June] and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 26

CAPITAL GAINS TAX: EXEMPTION FOR SMALL AMOUNTS

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 131, in page 22, line 22, leave out ' £50' and to insert ' £200'.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell): With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 133, in page 22, line 21, leave out from 'assessment' to end of line 22 and insert:
'if the total market value of such of his chargeable assets as are disposed of in the year does not exceed £750'.
No. 195, in line 22, leave out '£50' and insert '£75'.
No. 134, in line 23, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
No. 132, in line 24, leave out '£50' and insert '£200'.
No. 196, in line 24, leave out '£50' and insert '£75'.
No. 135, in line 38, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 39 and insert:
'For the purposes of this section'.

Mr. Baker: I should like to thank the Chair for selecting this series of Amendments. Similar ones were considered upstairs, so the arguments have been well aired. But one could say the same of all the Amendments selected in the last few days. Indeed, a characteristic of the Recommittal has been a series of encores with slight changes in cast. I believe that one of the characteristics of the London theatre season is the revival of musical comedies like "The Desert Song" and " The Dancing Years ", the tunes of which the audience know so well that they are attracted to go again. But I hope that this will not persuade the Government to get on the bandwagon of revival and repetition. I hope, however, that the West End impressarios are more successful in attracting an audience than we are tonight.
We are grateful for the chance to try to persuade the Treasury again of the overwhelming advantages of our Amendments. Clause 26 seeks to give tax relief on capital gains. It is the first substantial measure of relief introduced since the Capital Gains Tax was brought in. It seeks to do so by saying that all capital gains of under £50 are exempt from the Capital Gains Tax, with a proviso for tapering relief from £50 to about £72 10s. Any gains above that figure are subject to the full tax of 30 per cent.
In general, we welcome such relief, but we disagree with the method in which it is being given and also with the extent of the relief. The Government's case for Clause 26 is that there will be some saving to the Inland Revenue in administrative costs in that the tax inspectors will not have to bother going through the schedules of gains and profits from small investors to ensure that they have their sums right, but it is fair to say that the Government cannot put their ringer on how much saving there will be. We have repeatedly asked what it costs to collect the Capital

Gains Tax and the Government have repeatedly said that it is impossible to give the answer and that they cannot isolate the tax within the general level of other taxations.
However, the Chief Secretary, late one night in Committee upstairs, said that these figures would be revealed one day at an appropriate moment and I hope that this is it. We would like to know the cost of collection of the Capital Gains Tax so that we could judge whether there will be any material saving by the method of relief proposed in Clause 26. I feel that there will be a very small administrative saving to the Inland Revenue.
In the first place, if a taxpayer who has a liability to the tax is carrying forward a loss from one year to another—let us say, of £100—and this year makes a gain of £25, he still has to send in a schedule and the inspector must check up, and the carry forward loss may be reduced to £75. So, in the case of the taxpayer carrying forward his loss, there is no saving on the part of the Inland Revenue. Last week, I tried to find out from the Treasury how many taxpayers carry forward losses from one year to another, but the figure is not available. Indeed, what is aggravating about the tax and the whole administration of the tax system is the relative lack of information about it.
Secondly, it is ludicrous for the Government to say that they will make an administrative saving, but cannot quantify it. Any business which is to make an administrative saving by changing procedure knows how many man hours it will save and how many offices it will close, but the Government have no idea.
The object of the Amendment is to give relief in an entirely different way. In the debate on the last Amendment we discussed the Financial Secretary said, " One of my first objects is to put the Revenue to a great deal of trouble and the taxpayer to as little trouble as possible ". That is exactly the purpose of our Amendments. What I should like is not to exempt a particular gain but to exempt the disposal of a certain value of stocks and shares.
That would extend a principle which already exists in the law on Capital Gains Tax. The provision relating to chattels says that one can dispose of £1,000 worth


in any one year. One could, in theory, make a capital gain of £999 if one were lucky enough to buy a chattel for £1 and sell it for £1,000, and the gain would be exempt from the tax. We should like to have stocks and shares treated in the same way so that the small investor is exempted—and in the Clause and the Amendments we are essentially dealing with the small investor—from having to go to the great trouble of keeping a full set of records of capital gains and losses over a year.
The Government's proposal to give relief from Capital Gains Tax on the first £50 means that the small investor must keep those records and do the sums, which are exceptionally complicated. They are probably well beyond the ability of most small investors without a calculating machine. Some of the formula; in the Capital Gains Tax provisions involve equations with as many as four different numerators and seven different denominators.
I should like to make one or two comments on Capital Gains Tax and the relief attempted to be given in Clauses 26 and 27. The tax is undoubtedly our most complicated tax. It yields about £15¼ million a year, and the Government estimate that this year it will yield about £44 million. I understand that the relief under the Clause is about £500,000.
I believe that Capital Gains Tax will become the sort of Schedule A Tax of the 1970s, producing a relatively small amount of money with the maximum amount of annoyance and inconvenience. The short-term and ordinary Capital Gains Taxes should be simplified as a matter of urgent priority. The Clause does not simplify the tax at all. It introduces a new concept of relief on a particular value of gains and gives no relief to the small investor who must keep records.
I also believe that because of the complexity of the tax there is a great deal of unconscious evasion through the sheer ignorance of the small investor. He simply cannot understand the complexity of the tax. Unless the tax is radically reformed, it will put too great a strain on the fiscal honesty of individual taxpayers. Fiscal honesty is a very rare flower which does not take root in many

Continental soils. In our country it is on the whole a hardy perennial, but the Capital Gains Tax and the provisions which the Clause seeks to change—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going rather deeply into the Capital Gains Tax. We are not on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. We are only debating the Amendment.

Mr. Baker: I shall address my remarks to the Amendments, Sir Ronald, which range very wide, as they represent a substantial modification of Capital Gains Tax.
We on this side of the Committee contend that this is not a sensible way to reform the tax. It is supposed to be administratively simple, but we do not believe that to be so. The whole structure of the tax at present throws too great a weight on the fiscal honesty of the individual taxpayer, on human nature. I think that it was Damon Runyon who said:
When human nature is concerned, the odds are six to four against.
6.45 p.m.
I do not believe that a great number of taxpayers return all the acquisitions they have made during the year, all the assets they have changed, and the gains or losses they have made. It is up to the Treasury to start reforming the tax. It is probably too much to expect that we shall see any fundamental change of heart by Report, but there are many ways in which it can be done. I should be out of order if I suggested any, but, as a start, I suggest that the Committee should give very careful consideration to our proposals, which in essence aim at relieving the enormous administrative burden on the small investor. We are not here concerned with the large investor, the large unit trust of the large investment trust but the small investor and the enormous burden the present tax puts on him.

Mr. Walter Clegg: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker), who was such a welcome reinforcement of the Committte when it met upstairs. He has fully covered many of the arguments which I should have advanced, and I shall not follow quite the same line.
I should like to speak to Amendment No. 195, which is rather more modest than my hon. Friend's, not because I disagree with a word my hon. Friend said, or because I consider his Amendment to be less valid than mine. In fact, I would prefer his, because, as he said, it would result in a greater saving of time for the taxpayer.
I had better explain why Amendment No. 195 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South West (Mr. Tom Boardman) and myself is so modest. We seek merely to increase the limit by £75. The reason is the attitude consistently adopted upstairs by the Chief Secretary and other members of the Treasury team. He proved a very difficult man to persuade, though I still hope to appeal to him at the last gasp. Even if he had sympathy with something, at the end of the day he would argue that the country could not afford it at present, that this year about £900 million had to be raised, and that was it. It was a good long-stop argument.
The right hon. Gentleman's argument about the necessity to raise that amount of revenue this year is powerful. When one considers the latest trade figures and the unemployment figures out today, one can see some reasoning behind it. At the same time, though no one would deny that the country's economic position is difficult, I still think that there is room for the Amendment. There is certainly room for the £50 exemption. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to go just a short step further. There is room for manoeuvre because not only would the Inland Revenue be saved much time and effort by the Amendment, but it would encourage the small saver.
The small saver has recently been going in for unit trusts in a big way. Hardly a day passes—certainly, never a Sunday —without unit trusts advertising new issues. Money is obviously pouring in. This trend is to be encouraged, because these are small investors who are using their money to help industry. This is the first time this has occurred on such a scale.
I want to refer to a difficulty which may well discourage many investors. Many of these schemes enable investors to pay a certain amount each month, with which units are bought. At the end of

the year they have units which have been bought at different prices. This makes the completion of tax returns very difficult. After an investor has had some experience of unit trusts, he may decide that the effort involved is too great and he may switch his money to other forms of investment, which would be a bad thing in this stage of the country's fortunes.
I will give an analogy which would be more suitable for the Financial Secretary, if he were replying, because of his great knowledge of the fishing industry. I would liken the Treasury to the fisherman who uses not a narrow mesh which catches all the small fish which he then has to throw back, but a broader mesh which allows some of the smaller fish to slip back into the sea, so that, when he throws in his net at a later stage, he gets a haul of very succulent fish. This is what might happen in the fiscal field if the Chief Secretary were to broaden the net and thereby let some of the small fish escape; in future, the Treasury would reap great benefits.
People who make capital gains from unit trusts, or other small savings or shareholdings, do not do it by selling things so as to make a gain and buy other things. It is normally done for reinstatement. The reinvestment can grow and grow until it is of sufficient size for it to be worth the Treasury's while to catch it. At this very last gasp the Chief Secretary should think again and agree to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: We must all be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) for having moved the Amendment in such an able manner. He was well supporter by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who has tabled a rather more modest Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton, a comparative newcomer to Parliament, joined our proceedings in Standing Committee at a rather late stage to replace my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who fell ill during those proceedings. My hon. Friend appears to have fully recovered and I am sure that the whole Committee will be glad to welcome him back to the House.
We now approach the end of the Recommittal stage of the Bill under the new procedure. It is interesting to note that


this brave new experiment has produced a Recommittal stage at which, as we approach the Guillotine at 7 o'clock, the Government side is represented by two Ministers, one Whip, one P.P.S. and three back benchers. They are heavily outnumbered by hon. Members on this side. This illustrates the whole farce of the proceedings to which the Bill has been subjected.
I hope that the experience in Standing Committee, and certainly the experience during the two and a half days of Recommittal, will dissuade the Government from trying the experiment again. Hon. Members from both sides who were unfortunate to be incarcerated in Committee Room 10 day after day until the early hours of the morning—indeed, until breakfast-time on one or two occasions— will not want to go through that experience twice.
I do not think that the Bill has been examined with the care and attention that it would have received had it been taken from the very beginning on the Floor of the House of Commons. We are now on the first series of Amendments to Clause 26. There are 57 Clauses and 20 Schedules. Both sides of the Committee know that we shall be very lucky if we get beyond the new Clauses on Report. A very large number of them have been tabled.

Mr. Nott: Is it not disgraceful that a completely new tax—the special charge —is being introduced, involving taxation of 27s. in the £ on some individuals, and that it has not been discussed once since the Budget?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I have allowed a certain amount of latitude in view of the rather special occasion, but I must ask hon. Members to speak to the Amendment

Mr. Hall: Mr. Irving, I should be trespassing on your good nature if I followed up the point which was very properly and cogently made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I appreciate your Ruling and I will return to the Amendment. I felt that I had to make those points, and you have indicated that you appreciate that the special circumstances made it necessary.
I am surprised at the way in which the Treasury has been constantly and consistently refusing to accept any of the Amendments on this subject, which have been moved with great eloquence by my hon. Friends, both this afternoon and in Standing Committee. It has been said time and again that, of the many necessary reforms to the fiscal system, the one essential reform is a reduction in the burden both on the Revenue, which is creaking and groaning under the burden placed on it by the Labour Government, and on the taxpayer. All of us know from personal experience—this is no party point—that more and more taxpayers find it impossible to find their way through the increasing jungle of fiscal legislation. All of us must have considerable sympathy with the problem facing the average taxpayer who, without professional assistance, has to read the Bill and try to understand the Clauses.
I have often thought that when Parliament is discussing these matters, especially if the experiment of discussing the Bill in Standing Committee is continued, a large proportion of the Committee should be tax lawyers, because they are about the only people who can understand the incredible complications of fiscal legislation and unravel the jungle of Acts that affect our day-to-day tax affairs.
One would have thought that a proposal such as this, either to increase the amount of exemption or to give the exemption to a specific sum of tax gains in a particular year, would appeal to the Government, because, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Acton said, it would relieve some of the burden from the Treasury, but, above all, it would relieve the taxpayer of an immense amount of burden and relieve him of many complicated transactions.
When, in Standing Committee, I moved a very similar Amendment, I pointed out that the last Report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue which was available to us—that for the year ended on 31st March, 1967—shows that assessments of gains of up to £100 represented 55 per cent. of the total number of assessments in the year under review. Thus, if the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde referred, which would raise the limit from


£50 to £75, a very large number of taxpayers who up to now have been caught by the Capital Gains Tax would be exempted. More than half of the total assessments would cease having to be met by the taxpayers or considered by the Inland Revenue.
During the concluding proceedings on the Amendments upstairs, both the one which suggested the increase of the exempt gains from £1,000—

It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Resolution of the Business Committee agreed to by the House on 18th June, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put and negatived.

Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put forthwith pursuant to Order [11th June], and agreed to.

Bill reported, without further Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MEDICINES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have published, as is my custom, my selection of the Amendments which we will debate. With the new Clause 1, I suggest that we take new Clause 4—Export of medicinal product—Government Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 18, 30 and 31, and Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43.

Mr. Ivor Richard: On a point of order. May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, one question? I am not, of course, questioning the selection of Amendments by yourself, but I would mention one fact on which I would like your guidance. There was an Amendment on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and myself, which was Amendment No. 77. It was not discussed in Committee and, so far as I can see, the points which are raised by the Amendment are not covered by any other Amendment in the Notice Paper.
I am a little at a loss to know whether there is anything that I can do, and if so what, to bring this matter to the attention of yourself and those responsible for selection, and whether anything can be done so that this point, which is an important one to the Pharmaceutical Society, might be raised in the course of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I can only reply to the hon. Member in as courteous a way as he has spoken by expressing regret that his Amendment has not been selected. It occasionally happens that an hon. Member's Amendment is not selected.

New Clause 1

POSTPONEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS IN
RELATION TO EXPORTS

(1) Notwithstanding anything in sections 7 to 41 of this Act, in relation to anything done before such day (subsequent to the first appointed day) as the Ministers may by order appoint for the purposes of this subsection (in this section referred to as ' the special appointed day ') those sections shall have effect as if in them—

(a) every reference to exportation (in whatever form the reference occurs) were omitted;


(b) any reference to the sale or supply of a medicinal product did not include sale or supply which involves, or is for the purposes of, exporting the product; and
(c)any reference to offering a medicinal product for sale did not include an offer for sale where the prospective sale would involve, or would be for the purposes of, exporting the product.

(2)The Ministers shall not make an order under the preceding subsection unless it appears to them to be necessary or expedient to do so for the purpose of giving effect to an agreement to which the United Kingdom or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a party or will be a party on the day appointed by the order.
(3)The following provisions of this section shall have effect where an order is made under subsection (1) of this section; and for the purposes of those provisions the relevant transitional condition? shall be taken to be fulfilled by a person in relation to medicinal products of any description if, in the course of a business carried on by him,—

(a) substantial quantities of medicinal products of that description (that is to say, quantities exceeding those required for distribution as samples) were exported or procured to be exported during the period of twenty-four months ending immediately before the special appointed day, and
(b)during the whole of that period further substantial quantities of medicinal products of that description were available, or could within a reasonable time have been made available, to be so exported or procured to be exported if required.

(4) Unless the order expressly excludes the operation of this subsection,—

(a) subject to any order made by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection, section 7(2) of this Act shall not have effect in relation to a person in respect of his exporting on or after the special appointed day, or procuring the exportation on or after that day of, medicinal products of any description in relation to which he fulfils the relevant transitional conditions;
(b) section 17 of this Act shall have effect in relation to paragraph (a) of this subsection as it has effect in relation to the subsections of section 16 of this Act mentioned in that section.

(5) Where a product licence which is in force on the special appointed day authorizes the holder of the licence to sell medicinal products of any description, or to procure the sale, or procure the manufacture or assembly for sale, of medicinal products of any description, that licence shall have effect on and after that day as if—

(a) it also authorised him to export medicinal products of that description, or (as the case may be) to procure the exportation, or procure the manufacture or assembly for exportation, of medicinal products of that description, and
(b) it authorised him to do so subject to the like provisions as (apart from subsections (3) to (7) of section 41 of this Act)

are specified in the licence in relation to selling or (as the case may be) procuring the sale, or procuring the manufacture or assembly for sale, of such products:

Provided that, if the operation of subsection (4) of this section is not excluded by the order, a product licence shall not have effect as mentioned in this subsection in relation to medicinal products of any description so long as paragraph (a) of that subsection has effect in relation to the holder of the licence in respect of his exporting, or procuring the exportation of, medicinal products of that description.


(6) Where on an application for a product licence made before such date as may be appointed by the order for the purposes of this subsection, which states that it is an application made by virtue of this subsection, it is proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the licensing authority that the applicant fulfilled or will fulfil the relevant transitional conditions in relation to one or more descriptions of medicinal products, then (subject to the next following subsection) he shall be entitled to the grant of a product licence granted so as—

(a) to be limited to exportation, or procuring exportation, of medicinal products, and
(b) not to extend to medicinal products of any description other than those in respect of which it is so proved that the applicant fulfilled or will fulfil those conditions, and
(c) not to extend to medicinal products of any description in respect of which, at the time when the licence is granted, a product licence is already held by the applicant.

(7) If a person would, on making an application under subsection (6) of this section, be entitled to the grant of a product licence under that subsection in respect of medicinal products of a particular description, and he would at the same time, on making an application as mentioned in section 25(1) of this Act, be entitled to the grant of a licence of right in respect of medicinal products of the same description, he may apply to the licensing authority for a single product licence for both purposes, and he shall be entitled to the grant of a product licence having the same effect as the two licences, if granted separately, would together have had.
(8) Subsection (6) of section 26 of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of subsections (6) and (7) of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that section.
(9) An order made under subsection (1) of this section may contain such provisions relating to proceedings on an application made under subsection (6) or subsection (7) of this section (whether by way of applying with modifications any of the provisions of section27 of this Act or otherwise) as the Ministers may consider appropriate.
(10) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—Mr. K. Robinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause relates to the postponement of restrictions in relation to exports. On 21st March, in Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) moved a series of Amendments designed to exclude from the ambit of the licensing provisions of Part II of the Bill the activities mentioned in Clause 7 in relation to the exportation of any medicinal product.
The hon. Member urged, in support of the Amendments, that the valuable export business of the United Kingdom in pharmaceutical products might be lost if exporters had in this country alone to go through a licensing procedure which their competitors in other countries did not have to face.
Moreover, it was urged that in many cases the circumstances in which the products would be used in overseas countries were very different from the conditions in the United Kingdom and that, consequently, an assessment of safety and efficacy appropriate to United Kingdom conditions was not necessarily valid in relation to the country to which the product was to be exported.
In particular, it might be entirely acceptable for a product to be marketed overseas where its properties and hazards were acceptable to the practioners and to the authorities in the countries concerned, but where the Clause 4 committee or the Medicines Commission itself would not recommend a licence for marketing in the United Kingdom.
In general, we agree with this, but we are very conscious that discussions are now proceeding in the Assembly of the World Health Organisation with the objective of ensuring that the quality of exported pharmaceuticals is at least as high as is required for products to be marketed in the country of origin. This is a matter of importance to underdeveloped countries and others who have not the resources to test on a wide scale for quality when the goods have arrived in their country. We have felt, and we understand that the industry accepts, that if the United Kingdom is a party to an international agreement such as I have described to which other important pharmaceutical manufacturing countries

are also party, the licensing authority in this country must be in a position to ensure that the obligations are fulfilled. This would be done by a reactivation of the licensing requirement.
We undertook in Standing Committee to move Amendments postponing the licensing obligation, together with machinery for reactivating it later. Under pressure from the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and his colleagues I outlined, on 4th April in the Standing Committee, two alternative methods of securing this objective. I indicated which of them I thought I would prefer, and the Clause under discussion now follows the lines of that method. The substance of the Clause has been discussed with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and others, and I hope that now they have been able to examine the text of the actual Amendment they will feel that it fulfils the purposes that were outlined in the Standing Committee and on which I think there was a very large measure of agreement.
I will very briefly refer to the contents of the Clause, which is inevitably long and somewhat complicated. Subsection (1) postpones the provision in Part II of the Bill requiring a product licence to be held for export products, by omitting, pending reactivation by an Order subject to affirmative Resolution, every explicit reference in Clauses 7 to 41 inclusive to exports and exportation, and provides that all references in these Clauses to sale or supply are to be treated as not including sale or supply involving or for the purpose of exportation. The omissions that I have just described cover also Clause 31 relating to clinical and field trials.
Subsection (2) provides that a reactivation Order is to be made only for giving effect to an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party. The rest of the Clause deals with the inevitable transitional matters that would arise when the Order is made reactivating the licensing obligation. They are roughly parallel with the transitional provisions that are included in Part II of the Bill for introducing licensing of medicinal products for marketing at home. The Amendments to Clauses 7 and 8, Nos. 8, 9 and 10, are all consequential to this new Clause.
I would like to bring the attention of the House to important related matters. The first concerns certificates under Clause 31 of the Bill in relation to exportation for the purpose of clinical or field trials. The new Clause postpones the operation of Clause 31 in relation to exportation for clinical and field trials in just the same way as for licences for marketing by exportation.
During our discussions in Standing Committee the hon. Member for Surbiton asked, in c. 395, that we should be cautious about imposing controls on the exportation of material for clinical or field trials overseas because such a restriction had led to complications in the United States, and it was by no means clear that the Clause 4 committees or the Medicines Commission in the United Kingdom were in a good position to pass judgment on proposals to conduct trials, for example, in tropical countries where conditions might be very different, or that controls of this kind of clinical trials in other countries were of real value.
We have thought a great deal about this view, and we have come to the conclusion that it has force. When considering a marketing submission, the Safety of Drugs Committee had always been willing to consider on its merits data relating to clinical trials conducted in other countries, and I have no doubt that the licensing authority and the expert committee will do the same when licensing comes into operation. But there is not the same reason to screen proposals to conduct the clinical and field trials themselves when they take place overseas. Accordingly, provided that it is clear that such exportation would be for genuine clinical or field trials, I think that we need not provide for a certificate for this purpose or for reactivating the licensing provisions for this purpose.
I have not yet put down an Amendment because it would affect the wording of Clause 31 and I have not yet been able to complete the review of Clause 31 which I undertook to do for quite other purposes in the Standing Committee. We have made considerable progress, however, but it seems likely that there will have to be some radical redrafting, and I propose to arrange for the necessary Amendments to be moved in another place. They will incorporate the relaxation to which I have referred

in relation to export for clinical and field trial. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will bear this in mind when we come to a number of Amendments which they have put down on Clause 31, I think in most cases to remind me of my promise to review that Clause.
The second matter to which I want to refer relates to the licensing for exportation of a limited range of products the manufacture for sale of which is at present subject to licensing under Part I of the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, and Part II of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950. They are all substances the purity and potency of which cannot be adequately tested by chemical means, and include all vaccines, antitoxins and sera, whether for human or animal use, and a number of other substances covered by the Schedules to those Acts. Both Acts provide that the manufacture for sale shall not take place except in accordance with a licence issued in the first case by the Health Ministers and in the second by the Agriculture Ministers. This restriction applies now equally to manufacture for sale in the United Kingdom and for sale by exportation.
Some of these vaccines require the most stringent controls—for example, polio vaccine and foot-and-mouth vaccine—and all these substances involve safeguards in manufacture which can only be applied at the place of manufacture. The country receiving them may be quite unable to apply all the tests necessary to the finished product to assure itself about the products. Therefore, we think that these produots must remain subject to licensing when the Bill comes into operation.
Accordingly, it will be necessary to arrange for an Amendment to be moved in another place to exclude them from the postponement provisions of the new Clause. The point has been brought to the notice of representatives of the industry, and my understanding is that the need for an exception for these classes of products is fully recognised.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: On the agricultural side, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to live and not dead vaccines in this context.

Mr. Robinson: I will check that, but I think that that is the case. These are the vaccines scheduled in the Diseases of Animals Act in the case of agricultural substances. It is my understanding that the need for an exception for these classes of products is recognised by the industry. As I have already said, licensing applies now, so that there is no question of introducing a new impediment to the export of British Pharmaceuticals.
If the House agrees to the new Clause, I also intend to consider between now and the appropriate stage in another place, the consequences of the new Clause in relation to Clause 36, which deals with medicated animal feeding-stuffs. Here again, I have not put down an Amendment because we are reviewing a number of points in connection with Clause 36, and it would be more appropriate to deal with the consequences of this new Clause when that review is completed. I will undertake to arrange for any necessary Amendments to be moved in another place.
This has been a long explanation, but it is probably the most important point discussed between the two sides in Committee, and I thought that the House would like a detailed explanation of what inevitably is a long and complicated Clause.

Mr. Speaker: As I mentioned earlier, we are taking with this group of Amendments new Clause 4. It has occurred to me that I would be prepared to allow a Division on new Clause 4 if it were asked for.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In view of how far the Minister has gone, it would be churlish of me to wish that he had put his new Clause on the Amendment Paper earlier. As he suggested, it accounts for the appearance on the Paper of a number of Amendments, one or two of which are marked to be called, which the new Clause and his explanation now make unnecessary.
Before he began his explanation, the only point that I had in mind was to ask him to clarify the position as regards clinical and field trials. I am, therefore, grateful for his assurance that this point also will be met in subsequent Amendments in another place.
We on this side of the House accept the limitations imposed by the Therapeutic Substances Act and the Diseases of Animals Act and, since no new licensing provision is required, we would not quarrel with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
It only remains for me to thank him for meeting so fully the points which he raised in Committee and to welcome the new Clause and the consequential Amendments.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There is only one point which I wish to raise, and it concerns the animal feeding stuffs Clause and the Amendment which the Minister says that he will bring forward. I assume that he is talking in the context of the export of animal feeding stuffs—or is he talking about the revision of the whole of that Clause? Will the Amendment that he is to bring forward later be concerned purely with the export of animal feeding stuffs, or will it cover the whole subject of animal feeding stuffs?

Mr. K. Robinson: No. We are considering a number of Amendments on other points, besides the export points.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: We come now to new Clause 2, with which I propose that we take Government Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 63, 64, 65 and 105.

New Clause 2

EXEMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF HERBAL REMEDIES

(1) The restrictions imposed by sections 7 and 8 of this Act do not apply to the sale, supply, manufacture or assembly of any herbal remedy in the course of a business where—

(a) the remedy is manufactured or assembled on premises of which the person carrying on the business is the occupier and which he is able to close so as to exclude the public, and
(b) the person carrying on the business sells or supplies the remedy for administration to a particular person after being requested by or on behalf of that person and in that person's presence to use his own judgment as to the treatment required.

(2) Those restrictions also do not apply to the sale, supply, manufacture or assembly of any herbal remedy where the process to


which the plant or plants are subjected in producing the remedy consists only of drying, crushing or comminuting, and the remedy is, or is to be, sold or supplied—

(a) under a designation which only specifies the plant or plants and the process and does not apply any other name to the remedy, and
(b) without any written recommendation (whether by means of a labelled container or package or a leaflet or in any other way) as to the use of the remedy.—[Mr. Snow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause, together with Amendment No. 16 and Amendment No. 105, replaces Clause 12. Subsection (1) of the present Clause is restated and expanded in the proposed new Clause, and subsection (2) of the present Clause 12, which is a definition of " herbal remedy ", is transferred to the general interpretation Clause, Clause 117. Clause 12 in its present form accordingly disappears. The Amendment to Clause 48, which is Amendment No. 63, is largely consequential to the proposed new Clause.
These Amendments are tabled after consideration of criticisms expressed in Standing Committee of the provisions of Clauses 12 and 48—formerly Clause 47—and in the light of discussions held since then with representatives of the British Herbal Medicines Association, the National Institute of Medical Herbalists and the General Council and Register of Consultant Herbalists.
One of the criticisms levelled against the exemptions in respect of herbal remedies as they at present appear in the Bill was that the wider exemptions for extemporaneous remedies allowed in Clause 12(1) and Clause 48(2) were available only when the individual attended personally at the herbalist's premises and the medicine was delivered on those premises.
Another criticism was that as those wider exemptions were drafted the herbalist consulted by an individual was limited to the use of a product manufactured on his premises and could not supply a product which had been manufactured elsewhere unless it was both in pre-packed form and was either a product on the general sales list or one within

the limited category described in Clause 48(1). In Committee we had undertaken to consider whether " assembly " could be added, provided that licensed ingredients were used. It seems reasonable, therefore, that where a herbalist has personally seen an individual and has been requested to use his judgment as to the treatment required, the limitations now in the Bill as to the place of consultation, place of delivery, and place of manufacture of the herbal remedy supplied are not essential. Subsection (1) of the new Clause accordingly extends the exemption at present provided in Clause 12(1) by removing the restrictions to which I have referred in so far as they are related to licensing requirements. In so far as retail sale and supply requirements are concerned, these restrictions are removed by the Amendment to Clause 48.
The general effect of subsection (1 of the new Clause and of the Amendment to Clause 48 will be, therefore, that where a herbalist has seen an individual and has been asked to use his judgment as to the treatment required, he may prepare or assemble and sell or supply any herbal remedy which at the moment is not within a category restricted under Clause 43(3). In effect, the herbalist in these circumstances will be able to dispense either, first, a remedy which he has manufactured himself, or alternatively or, secondly, one which he has obtained in bulk from another manufacturer, or thirdly one which he has obtained elsewhere in prepacked form.
Subsection (2) of the new Clause deals with a point which was not mentioned in the Committee stage, but arose from discussions with herbal interests to which I have referred. This new subsection relieves from licensing the processing, packaging and sale or supply of herbal products like fennel, raspberry leaves or ground ginger root where they are to be sold or supplied simply as much, that is purely by the botanical name, with a reference to the process used in manufacture but without any written therapeutic recommendation. The exemption is limited to the processes mentioned— drying, crushing and comminuting—and is not affected by a purely oral recommendation. In other words, a herbalist can say " In your case, you should have this, that, or the other " and it would not be contrary to these provisions.
Closely coupled with the new Clause and the Amendments to Clauses 12, 48 and 117, is a further Amendment which we propose to arrange to be put down as soon as possible in another place. The effect of this Amendment will be to put manufactured herbal ingredients not already covered by Clause 116(1)(b) for use in the preparation of herbal remedies in the same position as the ingredients for use in pharmacies, hospitals, or by practitioners, all referred to in Clause I16(l)(b). The intention is that licensing control could be applied to bulk extracts —solid or fluid—tinctures and other substances, some of them very potent, used by the herbalist in the extemporaneous preparation of herbal remedies for the treatment of individuals who have consulted him.
Having regard to the consultations that have taken place since the discussion in Standing Committee and in the light of views then expressed by hon. Members, I would have hoped that the House might feel that this was a reasonable clause that meets all reasonable requirements such as have been posed to us.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I welcome this new Clause and I feel the Government have done the right thing in introducing it. As a doctor and a Member of Parliament I would not wish to do anything, either here or outside, to encourage the practice of self-medication, which I regard as unfortunate, and sometimes dangerous. Nor would I wish to encourage the practice of self-diagnosis which I regard as even more unfortunate and dangerous. On the other hand, however, if one places impediments and obstacles in the way of people operating a choice which they are entitled to make one creates a situation which is worse than that about which one was originally worried. 
I regret that some people sometimes seek—and I am not here commenting on all herbal remedies—remedies which are useless. I regret, too, that sometimes people rely on the kind of reassurance and advice: which I personally would regard as useless. At the same time we, in this House, ought to defend their right to do so. If we do not defend that right we may cast doubt even on the validity of the more orthodox methods of treatment which I, and I hope all responsible people, would wish to encourage.

In this particular group of substances we are, on the whole, dealing with substances which I freely acknowledge are sometimes helpful and not with dangerous substances which, as the Minister has made clear, naturally must be dealt with in another way. Had he not done so I could not have supported him, because I believe that while the public are entitled to freedom of choice to consult anyone they wish they are also entitled to protection insofar as dangerous substances should not be offered for sale.
At the same time, we are right in allowing this freedom and relaxing what is a rather strict control. In the White Paper it was made clear that there was no wish to place obstacles in the way of people seeking such remedies. But, at the same time, we must make clear that treatment should be sought from a professional source. Self-diagnosis can be desperately dangerous. Some who seek herbal remedies are able to seek them for conditions the diagnosis of which they know. But it would be dangerous to encourage people to seek remedies for conditions which have not been diagnosed.
I believe the Minister has been right to introduce this Clause. I speak not only as a Member of the House but as a doctor. But, having said that I regret, frankly, that this kind of Clause should be so necessary and I hope the public will heed certain of the warnings that have been given.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I have not contributed to earlier debates on the Bill because, unfortunately, I was not in the House when it went through its previous stage. I must declare an interest in that I hold office in a leading pharmaceutical company, but I want to mention a particular point which has no connection with the pharmaceutical industry with which I am connected. I would like to congratulate the lobbyists on behalf of herbal remedies. Since I have been back in Parliament, I have had more letters on this subject than any other, save those which were occasioned by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in an entirely different connection.
Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), I would


not advocate people going in for self-remedy; and he has far more experience of the problems of self-medication than I have. Undoubtedly, a large number of people believe in self-medication, and this has been very obvious from the weight of the lobby which hon. Members on both sides of the House have experienced. From the way that it put its case it went a long way towards convincing me that it was right to give it special consideration. It underlines the power and value of the Parliamentary lobby; that when people feel strongly enough they can press us and we can press the Government to try to put the Bill right. In those circumstances, I am grateful that the Government have decided to take action on this and I congratulate them on bringing forward this new Clause.

7.30 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I tabled Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 64 and 65 before the new Clause had appeared. It seems to go a long way, if not all the way, to meet the needs of medical herbalists and to enable them to continue their practice and to use herbal preparations which they had done hitherto. I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) into his discourse about always consulting a registered medical practitioner, but will not do so because it is not the subject of this new Clause. I assure him that there is provision in the Bill for a herbal poisons list, and this provision, which is a fairly important one, has been universally accepted as a necessary precaution. I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends for having gone so far to meet the difficulties of herbal practitioners, and because of the new Clause I would not wish to press my own Amendments.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: The House is considering very ancient and cherished rights which many people have represented to us, and the House is rightly grateful to the Minister for having tabled the new Clause. I must ask for his patience in that I am not absolutely certain that I have rightly understood what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. My own inquiries from herbalists who have been in touch with me in my constituency suggests that there is something not quite satisfactory in the new

Clause, and I thought from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that this was to be put right in another Amendment.
I gather that the trouble with the new Clause is that it does not remove the restrictions from the herbal remedy where the process went a little further than drying, crushing or comminuting—where the herbal remedy was in the form of a liquid extract, a tincture or substance reduced to powder and a solid extract of the kind bought from a qualified supplier and made by a qualified chemist in his employ. I thought I heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that this was covered by another Amendment to a later Clause. Perhaps when he replies he can explain whether this point is covered. If so, it will go a long way to satisfy the doubts expressed, which are not set at rest by the new Clause as it stands.

Mr. Paul Dean: We welcome this new Clause and the consequential Amendments. In Committee, it was felt that before the new Clause was introduced the Bill was unduly restrictive on herbalists and those who took herbal remedies. It is very satisfactory that the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to deal with most of the points raised. I am particularly glad to see that he has dealt in subsection (l)(b) with the point emphasised very strongly in Committee, about a person who, through infirmity or for some other reason, could not get to the herbalist's house or consulting rooms. The herbalist can now take the preparation to the person in their homes. It is highly desirable that this should be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) referred to herbal remedies not covered by subsection (2), that is where there is something more than drying, crushing or comminuting involved. I thought that I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it was the Government's intention to move an Amendment in another place to cover certain manufactured herbal ingredients, and put them in the same category as the exemptions which apply in the Clauses of the Bill as it stands.
Another point concerns the health food stores. We covered this aspect in Committee, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would confirm that these stores are within the definition of herbalists who


can sell herbal remedies over the counter. In Committee he said that he was advised that this was the case and, perhaps following consultations he has had with the herbalist representatives, he can clarify this point. He assured the House that there had been consultations with all the main herbalist bodies but he did not say whether they were satisfied with those consultations and the new Clause. Perhaps he could tell us now.

Mr. Snow: On the last point, I can assure the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) that to the best of our knowledge we believe that this new Clause meets the requirements of the herbalists. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), what I said was that it is the intention that licensing control could apply to bulk extracts, solid or fluid, tinctures or other substances used by the herbalist in extemporaneous preparation of herbal remedies. It has been pointed out to me that there are a number of ointment bases which are not of herbal origin but which are traditionally used by herbalists.
My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider whether anything needs to be done so that the use of such substances is not excluded. We are anxious to help this traditional profession as far as we can, and it does not seem that this would prove difficult if we find that the other provisions of the Bill do not cover this point. I was tempted, but decided to resist the temptation, after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), to refer to traditional attitudes that are not peculiar to herbalists. I am glad that he welcomes the fact that we are extending as far as we can within the bounds of safety the freedom to the particular form of medicine which is the subject of the new Clause. In those circumstances I hope that the House will agree to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Iremonger: When the hon. Gentleman referred to bulk extracts, does he mean stuff we buy in a bottle and pour out a few drops for the customer from time to time as required; preparations ready-made and dispensed little by little?

Mr. Snow: That is so. A herbalist who has a large trade would not buy 6d. bottles of tinctures. He can buy in

bulk provided that he is adequately covered by licensing control when considerations of safety are involved.
I forgot to mention that health food stores are in exactly the same position as any other retail outlets dealing in herbal remedies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause

MANUFACTURING LICENCE
(REQUIREMENT)

No manufacturing licence shall be required for any substance specified by order under section 96(1)(b), provided that any application is made for a product licence for that portion of the substance which will fall under the provisions of any order made under section 96(\)(b).—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause flows directly from what happened in Committee on 21st May, when we were discussing what was then Clause 93. There are various substances which under the fresh Clause 96 can be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Order laid by the Minister. These substances can include such things as insecticides. Part of the substances may be applied in a confined space. If they are, they will rank as medicinal products because they will be applied to an animal or inhaled by an animal. Therefore, quite rightly, provided that the Minister introduces an Order under Clause 96, the provisions of the Bill will take effect.
But, in fact, the same substances could well have other applications. The obvious example is the fly spray which might be used in a confined space for killing bugs or termites in a farm building and which could be inhaled by the animal. This would be brought within the ambit of the Bill if an Order were made under Clause 96. Such substances are frequently used in the home and outside for crop spraying, and so on. The bulk manufacturer of such a product would not require a manufacturing licence provided that an Order had been


made and that the person making these bulk supplies applied for a product licence for that part of the bulk supply which would come within Clause 96(1)(b)
The purpose of the new Clause is to exclude that portion of the bulk supply which would not come within the provisions of the Bill but include for the purposes of a product licence as opposed to a manufacturing licence that part which would rightly come within the ambit of the Bill.
A mistake was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in Committee. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether a manufacturer would
have to get a product and manufacturing licence for the whole of the bulk production?
He said:
Yes, it will come under product licence".
I then said:
For the whole bulk? ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st May, 1968; c. 771.]
The hon. Gentleman then indicated assent. I think that that was probably an error. I do not think that he meant to do that. Therefore, I ask him to put right what he indicated on that day by accepting the new Clause.
I am not particularly wedded to the words which I have proposed. I have tried only to bring in that part of an insecticide or substance which comes within the Bill by the application of an Order made under Clause 96(l)(b). If my drafting is faulty, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking to introduce a similar Amendment covering my point, namely, that a manufacturing licence will not be required in the circumstances to which I referred. If he were to do that, I should be more than willing to withdraw the Clause.

7.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said that if his drafting of the new Clause were faulty he would welcome our introducing a proposal to cover the point. There is a minor technical objection to the new Clause in that he refers to a "manufacturing licence" and

not a "manufacturer's licence". I should not take advantage of that in rejecting the new Clause, but since the hon. Gentleman is very good at bringing me to order sometimes on loose drafting I thought that there would be no harm in making that point.
Clause 96(l)(b) deals with substances which if used without proper safeguards are capable of causing danger to the health of the community or of causing danger to the health of animals generally or of one or more species of animals. The substances which might be concerned presumably would not be in a medicinal form and it is, therefore, unlikely that we should want to require the issue of a manufacturer's licence for a product controlled under Clause 96(l)(b). For instance, in the rare cases where a pesticide might be brought under control in this way, I cannot think of any case where this would not be so.
Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that it would be rash of us to limit the factors which may be considered in relation to such substances should circumstances arise where they might be appropriate. The hon. Member is, I am sure, aware of the tremendous advances which have been made concerning substances used in agriculture and what he suggests might inhibit us in the development of other substances. It may be that some substances now being developed would fall into this category and we might be in some difficulty if we were specifically excluded from considering conditions of manufacture, which would happen if the new Clause were accepted.
An Order under Clause 96 will not necessarily apply all the provisions of the Bill to the substances concerned. It must specify which provisions are to apply in a particular case and the power to make an Order also allows exceptions and modifications to be made to the provisions in question.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we would not seek to impose any provisions in the Bill which were not appropriate or relevant. A manufacturer's licence is only one example. Moreover, there is the safeguard that there would have to be consultations with the interested organisations before an order were made, and there will be the added safeguard that these will be affirmative orders.
With these assurances, I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied that his new Clause is unnecessary, and probably would create more problems than it would solve, and will withdraw it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: By leave, may I briefly thank the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. However, he has not quite covered my points.
I accept what he said about the technical error in drafting. I apologise to him for not having taken more expert care on it. He said that the fact that exceptions and modifications could be made under the Order covered my point. I do not think that it does. I take his point about not wanting to be too restrictive and that developments concerning these substances were so rapid that a manufacturer's licence might be needed. But a product licence for that part which will fall under the conditions laid down by the Order introduced under Clause 96(1)(b) should be sufficient; there should be no need for a manufacturer's licence.
The hon. Gentleman is storing up an enormous number of difficulties if he insists on the obtaining of a manufacturer's licence for the whole of the bulk production of which only a small part will be used and which will fall under Clause 96(1)(b) should an Order be made by the Minister. Although there may be exceptions and modifications, which I understand and accept, the Minister will have great difficulty if he insists on a manufacturer's licence being brought in. Reasonableness demands only that a product licence should be necessary in this case. Section 96(1)(b) should be used for those substances which are outside the definition of medicinal products, which is what we are discussing.

Mr. Mackie: It is really a matter of opinion whether a product licence would cover this point or not. As I said in my speech, this point is adequately guarded. We shall not rush in and demand a manufacturer's licence for everything. There are many products in bulk form which the farmer dilutes. I could mention a particular spray which can be used inside a poultry house. We want the power to bring some of those things under a manufacturer's licence, but the cases will be rare. As I say,

it is a matter of opinion whether a product licence would cover the matter or not. We do not want other things which may be developed in future to be inhibited should this arise.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICINES COMMISSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 1, with which it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 2.

Mr. Michael English: Before moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to raise two matters which partake of the nature of points of order in that they concern the Chair rather than my right hon. Friend.
It should be brought to the notice of the House that the volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT relating to the Standing Committee proceedings on the Bill has not yet been published. This is peculiarly unfortunate. Through no fault of the permanent HANSARD reporters, the Standing Committees are often reported by part-time reporters, as it were. In this case, in certain respects there were some inaccuracies which could have been, and no doubt will be, corrected in the volume if and when it is published. However, it is a bit late having it published after this debate has taken place.
The other point is that Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of Amendments, which always appears in the No Lobby, used also to appear on the Ways and Means corridor. During the last few weeks this practice has ceased. I think that it ought to be reinstituted.
Having said that, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 28, leave out from 'industry' to end of line 29.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, mentioned, it is also convenient to take with Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 29, at end insert:
(f) so much of the pharmaceutical industry as relates to retail sale.
The object of these Amendments, which are alternative to each other, is


simple. I do not know what has happened with Clause 2. I suspect that during the course of drafting it was correctly believed that subsection 3(a).
the practice of medicine (other than veterinary medicine)",
balanced subsection 3(b),
the practice of veterinary medicine",
in suggesting the interests to be represented. This is correct.
I suspect that it was also believed that subsection 3(c), " the practice of pharmacy ", was supposed to be balanced by subsection 3(e),
the pharmaceutical industry, except so much of it as relates to retail sale.
Unfortunately, the practice of pharmacy is not necessarily the same as the retailing of pharmaceutical products. I do not propose to go into detail, because we may discuss this on a later Amendment. However, I suggest Amendment No. 1 as a minimum. In other words, to leave out the words,
except so much of it as relates to retail sale.
From what my right hon. Friend said in Standing Committee, he might be reasonably sympathetic to this Amendment. I do not think that it is wholly intentional on the part of the Ministry that the Clause should be worded as it is. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will accept Amendment No. 1 and will give me an assurance that, when selecting the members of the Medicines Commission, he will represent the interests of retailing as distinct from merely manufacturing or merely the practice of pharmacy.
A large section of the Bill relates, for example, to the advertising, labelling and marketing of products generally. It would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate if my right hon. Friend was advised by a Commission which had no representative of the marketing, advertising or other relevant interests. There are many subjects upon which my right hon. Friend will need advice. If the Commission is composed solely of the interests of manufacturers, doctors, "vets" and pharmacists, it will be incapable of advising my right hon. Friend as he should be advised.
I prefer that one should add a new section, which is the reason for Amendment No. 2, saying specifically that one should add some representatives of re-

tailers. However, I would be extremely pleased if my right hon. Friend would accept one or other of these two Amendments.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). There is a great need for the Medicines Commission to be properly balanced. All aspects of the work involved should be reflected. It is crucial to the whole exercise and vital that the people appointed should be acceptable to the public, to the industries and to the individuals concerned. If the Bill is to work harmoniously, to be carried on with the right kind of co-operation, and to gain the confidence of the public and industry, all these interests must be properly reflected.
I hope that the Minister will pay great heed to the representations which will be made to him when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has put forward a strong case in his own interest. We are concerned here with the representation on the Commission, the expert advice available to the Minister. One must be extremely careful, because there are several interests which will be affected. We had an instance a few minutes ago from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, when he spoke of types and kinds of substances which should be brought in where a manufacturer's licence and a product licence would be required. One could argue strongly that there should be a representative on the Commission representing those views, but they are not mentioned in Clause 2 at the moment. In Standing Committee, we argued extensively about the size of the Commission. One is getting into a dangerous position if one brings in representatives from any particular sector.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. His comment applies to my second Amendment. I think that he would agree that the position is rather different in Amendment No. 1, because that relates to the portion of the Bill, as it now stands, which appears, although technically I believe it does not, to exclude retailers. This is unusual. It does not apply to any other case. It does not


technically do this, but, on a quick reading in the Ministry at the time of appointment of members of the Commission, it might be taken to do so. I think that it would be better left out.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am directing my remarks to Amendment No. 2. I accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 1, and I hope that the Minister will accept it. I am apprehensive about Amendment No. 2. If we widen the field and bring in all kinds of people that will be all right, but we simply cannot do that. We discussed this issue in Committee, and I was convinced by the Minister that we would get into an unmanageable position if this kind of proposal were accepted. I think that there are certain dangers here as I am sure both the Minister and the hon. Gentleman appreciate. I support the first Amendment, but not the second one.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: We had a full discussion on this point in Committee on the basis of an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) relating to the reflection of retail pharmacy in the membership of the Medicines Commission. My hon. Friend explained then, as he reiterated today, that there was anxiety that the words "the practice of pharmacy", in subsection (3)(c), were not specific enough, whereas the explicit exclusion of retail sale in subsection (3)(e) greatly increased his anxiety because there was no corresponding positive mention in subsection (3)(c).
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained that the phrase "the practice of pharmacy" covered retail pharmacy, although the words were not used; and he said—and I endorse it— that we should be extremely surprised if there were no person on the Commission with wide and recent experience of the retail practice of pharmacy. My hon. Friend went on to give an assurance about consultations with regard to the membership of the Commission, and made it clear that we would consult the National Pharmaceutical Union, the Company Chemists' Association, and the Co-operative Union, which are the three organisations representing all retail pharmacists, and also the Pharmaceutical Society.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West withdrew his Amendment in Committee, it was clear that he was not altogether happy, hence, no doubt, the tabling of these two Amendments which he describes as alternatives. I am anxious to be helpful, and I see no objection to accepting the first Amendment, provided it is understood that in relation to subparagraph (e) we should have only the manufacturing or wholesale aspects in view.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained in Committee that it would be undesirable to insert an explicit reference to retail pharmacy in sub-paragraph (c), for the reason given by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), that this would almost certainly stimulate requests for corresponding precision in relation to the practice of medicine, the practice of veterinary medicine, and so on. I gather from my hon. Friend that he was asking me to accept only one of the Amendments. I have pleasure in accepting the first one, and I hope that he will not press the second one.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 38, leave out from ' committee' to ' established ' in line 39.
The Amendment removes the disqualification from membership of the House of Commons from members of committees appointed by the Medicines Commission. This is because members of such committees will be appointed, not by Ministers, but by the Medicines Commission itself, which is specifically stated in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 not to enjoy any status of the Crown.
The effect of Clause 2(6) as it stands is to insert the entry in question into Schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957. As far as I am aware there are no other entries in that Schedule, or in any later editions, referring to committees appointed by the bodies named in the Schedule. There is clearly no question of patronage by the Crown, and in our view there is no ground for creating a precedent for disqualifying second-tier bodies such as these committees appointed by the Commission. This is a minor point, but I think that it would be an undesirable precedent.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION

Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 1, leave out ' advice to the appropriate Ministers ' and insert:
'to any one or more of the Ministers specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 1(1) of this Act advice'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that Amendment we are taking Amendment No. 5, and Amendment No. 102, in Clause 115, page 100, line 29, leave out ' appropriate Ministers ' and insert:
'Ministers proposing to make the regulations or order'.

Mr. Snow: On 12th March, I gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that we would examine the application and interpretation of the term used in the Bill "the appropriate Ministers". In consequence of that undertaking we re-examined the use of that phrase throughout the Bill to see whether the special definition in Clause 1(2) was appropriate.
I said that Amendments would be moved to Clause 3(1), which refers to Ministers asking the Commission for advice and being advised by it, and to Clause 115(6), which was formerly Clause 113, which requires the appropriate Ministers to consult before making regulations or Orders. In both cases the meaning was "the relevant Ministers" rather than the special meaning attached to the phrase "the appropriate Ministers" in Clause 1(2).
The first two Amendments result in making Clause 3(1) read:
The Commission shall give to any one or more of the Ministers specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 1(1) of this Act advice on matters relating to … where either the Commission consider it expedient, or they are requested bv the Minister or Ministers in question, to do so.
The third Amendment makes Clause 115 read:
Before making any regulations … the Ministers proposing to make the regulations or Order shall consult such organisations …
That fulfills my undertaking in Committee, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendments.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I can do no more than thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in introducing these Amendments. In doing so he has carried out his undertaking, and I am grateful to him. Both Clauses are now much clearer than they were, and I think that the purpose which we both had in mind has been achieved.

Amendment argeed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 5 in page 3, line 5, leave out' those Ministers ' and insert:
'the Minister or Ministers in question '.— [Mr. Snow.]

Clause 4

ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEES

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 18 after ' names ' insert ' or other publication '.
The Amendment is consequential to the new Clause inserted in Committee, and which now appears as Clause 93. As subsection (l)(a) of that Clause envisages that functions concerned with other publications will be performed by a committee established under Clause 4, it is necessary to provide in this Clause the power to establish such a committee. Once the power to establish a committee under the Clause is in the Bill, the effect of Clause 3(2)(e) is that the functions in question are brought within the functions of the Medicines Commission in so far as they are not for the time being assigned to a Clause 4 committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO COMMISSION AND COMMITTEES

Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 5, line 8, after 'function ', insert:
'related to the safety, efficacy or quality of medicinal products'.
This matter was discussed in Committee, and it is one to which we attach great importance. The Clause as it stands gives the Minister power to confer on the Commission by Order any new function. It


does not specify to what the new function is to refer. It just says any new function which can be specified by Order, without any new resolution coming before the House. This power is far too extensive. It is a blank cheque to the Minister and could be used to alter the Bill's character. I do not suggest that this is his intention, but we are concerned not with his intentions but with what is written into the Bill.
This is a clear phrase, the power to confer on the Commission "any new functions". This type of very extensive power is virtually without precedent. A number of Acts recently have set up various committees and boards and in no case has power been given to confer new functions on the bodies concerned. For example, the Land Commission Act contains no power to confer new functions on the Land Commission. Similarly with the Act which set up the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and the Race Relations Act 1965, which set up the Race Relations Board. These are just three examples of bodies similar to the Medicines Commission, and on none is a similar power conferred.
The Minister said in Committee that he had no additional functions in mind, but he also said, trying to meet the points put,
… I will consider the possibility of adding some words to subsection (4, c) "—
what is now subsection (4)(b)—
to confine the scope of any additional functions that might be conferred on the Commission."—[OFFICAL REPORT, Standing Committee D; 21st March 1968, c. 149.]
That is all that we are asking. The Amendment does not rule out any new functions, but only provides that they should be directly relevant to the Bill and its main objects. We have tried to meet the Minister's points by suggesting that the new functions will be acceptable through an affirmative Order so long as it is clear that they relate to the Bill's main objects. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. K. Robinson: It is correct that, in a discussion in Committee on an Amendment designed to preclude the making of Orders conferring any new functions on the Commission, which was defeated on a Division, I undertook to consider the possibility of finding some words to confine possible additional

functions. We have considered that possibility since, but I am afraid that—since the only change which could reasonably be made in this provision is to insert some general words indicative of matters relating to the purposes of the Bill, and I am advised that, in any event, this power must be exercised within the ambit of the Bill—I have concluded that it is better to leave the wording as it is. New functions would have to relate to medicinal productions and to connected matters and purposes. I am advised clearly on that point. The hon. Gentleman skated over the fact that the affirmative procedure is required should any new function be added by the Government, and this is a valuable safeguard.
8.15 p.m.
To limit the new functions, as the Amendment proposes, to functions related to the safety, efficacy or quality of medicinal products would be far too narrow. There is a number of areas in the Bill which go beyond this. For example, there are matters of consumer protection. I can only repeat what I said in Committee—that we have no proposals in view for extending the functions. If I had had, I would have included them in the Bill in the first place, and I can see no advantage in confining the ambit of any potential Order in the way that the Amendment proposes.
As we have the affirmative procedure, that should be a perfectly adequate safeguard, and there is the additional accepted doctrine that any accepted func-tion must be within the ambit of the Bill as it stands. So we would achieve nothing by merely adding general words which repeated the long Title of the Bill, and I suggest that it is right to leave the wording as it is.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I would like some more explanation about two points in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The main tenor of his argument was that any functions must be within the general ambit of the Bill and that he is advised to that effect, but he did not tell us why. He did not say by what say-so these functions have to be confined. Is this a general legal doctrine? The Bill does not say so. Would he explain that a little more?
Second, when challenged as to why the new functions must not be confined to safety, efficacy and quality,


which are the three pillars of the Bill, he gave, as an example of an exception, consumer protection. But surely consumer protection is a matter of either safety or quality. Any other off the cuff, ad hoc, example of powers which the Commission should properly have would be connected with one of these three matters. There is nothing else in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman thought of another example in Committee, when he talked about the possibility that the Commission might want to run drug test laboratories, but that would surely be connected with the safety or quality of drugs. He will find that every example comes back to these three matters, which are the heart and soul of the Bill. I hope that he can reconsider this before Report.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Minister said that he thought that the affirmative procedure was a valuable safeguard, but it is nothing like as good as the need to introduce new legislation if the case arose. This Government are very fond of this type of legislation, and it is to be deprecated. In the hands of a future illiberal Minister—I acquit the right hon. Gentleman in this connection—these powers could be far too wide. I cannot understand why he resists this. His explanations are usually lucid, but today his remarks were unconvincing. The whole basis of the Bill is concerned with safety, efficacy and quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) said, if one takes into account many of the other aspects of the Measure, they, too, are caught by those words.
We can envisage a situation in years to come when a Minister might have a pathological hatred of the pharmaceutical industry and might use the Medicines Commission as a creature of his will to damage its institutions. I accept that there is a Parliamentary safeguard, but it is not strong enough.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think about the matter again. So far we have had much agreement on the Bill and the Government have been reasonably generous in introducing Amendments to make the Measure more workable. The Commission will get off to a better start if it has good terms

of reference instead of the present woolly drafting, which gives carte blanche at any time to any future Minister to introduce whatever he likes.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I cannot understand why the Minister is making such heavy weather of this very reasonable and moderate Amendment. When we argued this matter in Committee on 19th March the Parliamentary Secretary said—and the right hon. Gentleman confirmed this tonight—that he had no additional functions in mind but that there must be flexibility. "Flexibility" is a vague word in this context and this is a vague and a very wide Clause. It is unnecessarily and dangerously wide and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has said, it could be used to alter the whole character of the Bill. It could also be used to prejudice the position of the medical profession and that of the pharmaceutical industry.
In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look at this section again. The right hon. Gentleman said the same. The Parliamentary Secretary gave that promise in answer to comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who was also anxious and critical about this aspect of the Bill. We are now told that, having considered the matter again, the Government are not prepared to accept this moderate Amendment. But we have been given only one reason, only one example, that of consumer protection, which the right hon. Gentleman considers is outside the scope of the Amendment. It was the weakest example he could have given because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Gars-ton (Mr. Fortescue) pointed out, it is impossible to say that consumer protection does not fall within the definition of "safety" or "quality".
I am not usually a suspicious person, but I cannot help wondering why more convincing reasons and examples have not been given for rejecting this Amendment. Why are these wide powers needed? I expected, following the assurances given in Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman would either have effectively studied the matter again and accepted our Amendment or, in view of the very long time that has elapsed between 19th March and today, that he would have done his homework and supplied us with more


convincing reasons for not accepting the Amendment. Merely to advance the phrase ''consumer protection" is not enough. It is almost insulting to hon. Members:, who took a lot of trouble with the Bill in Committee and who went into the subject in depth, to be fobbed off with phrases like "consumer protection" and "flexibility" which, in this context, mean nothing and are totally unconvincing.
We are only asking that the right hon. Gentleman should confine the operation of the Bill to the subjects with which it now deals and the safeguards and purposes which it is designed to secure. Why does the right hon. Gentleman still insist on these wide powers which he has given no real reason for wanting and which any successor in his job could use to alter the whole Bill. It is really not right to asked Parliament to accept a clause drafted in this way and I hope my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to a division.

Mr. K, Robinson: It ill-becomes one of the sponsors of a starred Amendment to say that there has been a very long time since the end of the Committee stage.

Mr. Dean: We waited for the right hon. Gentleman until the last minute before taking action.

Mr. Robinson: I am prepared to accept that explanation. Nevertheless, there has not been a very long time since the close of the Committee stage.
I explained that I have given thought to the matter and I told the House of the conclusions I have reached. I was beginning to wonder what had happened to the power, which was so much displayed by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee, to conjure up bogeys. I was beginning to think that they had lost it, but I am almost happy to find that they are as good as ever. Again we have had expressed that terrible thought that in the back of the mind of some hypothetical Minister of Health of the future will be the wish to use the Medicines Commission to dish the pharmaceutical industry.
I cannot accept the Amendment, first in view of what I said earlier; that it is far too restrictive, and secondly because it is not true to say that consumer protection must include only safety, quality and

efficacy. There is also the question of misrepresentation. If I could think of a valuable and useful function for the Commission to do at this moment, I would have included it in the Bill in the first place. It is no idle form of words to say that we need flexibility, because it is difficult to forecast the future.
It may be that some function would be appropriate to the Commission, which everyone would agree would be appropriate, but for which no Government would feel the necessity of bringing forward a whole new piece of legislation. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that the present Government are fond of legislation of this kind. All Governments are fond of legislation which gives delegated powers.

Mr. Dudley Smith: This one especially.

Mr. Robinson: That is a matter of opinion, and possibly of opinion coloured by party political prejudice. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) asked on what basis I was advised that any additional function would have to come within the ambit of the Bill. I am informed that there are decisions of the courts which make it abundantly clear that any exercise of statutory powers must be within the four corners of the Act conferring those powers.
I am prepared to have yet another look at this matter between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, but even if I were able to find an appropriate form of words, it could be little more that a re-statement of the Long Title of the Bill. I will have another look to see whether something of this kind can be devised but, for the reasons I have given, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's willingness to have another look at this matter, I must ask the House to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby. I am still a little puzzled about the need for this refusal, because there seems so little difference between us when we think of what the Minister says that I am at a loss to see why he is reluctant to put this safeguard into the Bill. I always try to


acquit him of having sinister designs and always very reluctantly become suspicious because of the explanations he gives for refusing to make Amendments of this sort.
The Minister asked what had happened to the bogeys. He has been sufficiently forthcoming about other new Clauses and Amendments to allay some of our suspicions. I wish that he had not aroused them by what he said on this Amendment. It is difficult to see what objection he can have, because what else is the Bill about except "safety, efficacy or quality". If he is denying the relevance of those words to this Clause, he is beginning to cast doubts on whether this is the sole purpose of the Bill and the sole function of the Commission. I am not concerned, as the Minister suggested, with safeguarding the pharmaceutical industry in this context, or particularly in any other. It is the doctors rather than the pharmaceutical industry, who are concerned here.
The Minister said that if he could think of any words which he could put into the Clause, they would be a repetition of the Long Title, and that the words we had suggested relating to "safety, efficacy or quality" do very much the same thing because they are concerned with the whole purpose of the Bill. He referred to medicinal matters and purposes connected therewith and quoted consumer protection. When challenged on consumer protection, he said that there was not only "safety, efficacy or quality" but the danger of misrepresentation. What could an advertisement or a statement about a medicinal product to misrepresent except "safety, efficacy or quality "? There is nothing else but the price.

With the wording of the Clause as it stands the Commission, or one of its committees, by an affirmative Order of this House could take over the present functions of the McGregor Committee and thereby give them statutory effect. This is not my only worry. The whole range of new functions which this Clause, unqualified, allows and which have proved unnecessary for the Prices and Incomes Board, the Land Commission and the Race Relations Board, should not be necessary except insofar as they are needed for "safety, efficacy or quality" by the Medicines Commission. For that reason I ask my hon. Friends, indeed the whole House, to support our Amendment in the Lobby.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I do not wish to raise the temperature of this discussion any higher than it has been raised by hon. Members opposite, but I was a little concerned at the efforts of my right hon. Friends to get this consensus between the two sides of the House. He gave an assurance to the Opposition that he would look at this matter again. He has proved his point and looked at the matter carefully between Committee and Report. He has given an assurance tonight—which, unfortunately, has been rejected—that he will see if a further Amendment can be made.
I ask whether, in the present situation between this House and another place, the other House will be able to look at any Amendments.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 120.

Division No. 226.]
AYES
[8.34 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Errington, Sir Eric


Bell, Ronald
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Biffen, John
Cordle, John
Fisher, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Corfield, F. V.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Costain, A. P.
Fortescue, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Foster, Sir John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Gibson-Watt, David


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Braine, Bernard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Doughty, Charles
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Drayson, G. B.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Burden, F. A.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hawkins, Paul


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Emery, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey




Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Silvester, Frederick


Hunt, John
Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George


Iremonger, T. L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Smith, Dudley (W'w ck &amp; L'mington)


Johnson Simth, G. (E. Grinstead)
Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner
Ward, Dame Irene


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Webster, David


Kirk, Peter
Pym, Francis
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lane, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lubbock, Eric
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


MacArthur, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Worsley, Marcus


McMaster, Stanley
Ridsdale, Julian



Macmillar, Maurice (Farnham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maude, Angus
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Anthony Royle and


Maxwell-Hyslop, R.. J.
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Hector Monro.


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Horner, John
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Barnes, Michael
Howie, W.
Palmer, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Hoy, James
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Perry, George H, (Nottingham, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Prioe, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Booth, Albert
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Price, William (Rugby)


Boston, Terence
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rhodee, Geoffrey


Bradley, Tom
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Richard, Ivor


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St..P'c'as)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roebuck, Roy


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cronin, John
Ledger, Ron
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ryan, John


Davies, Eclnyfed Hudson (Conway)
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dickens, James
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Joseph


Driberg, Tom
Mackie, John
Small, William


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)
Snow, Julian


Eadie, Alex
MacPherson, Malcolm
Swlngler, Stephen


Ennals, David
Marquand, David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rinn. James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, J. J.
Ruck, Raphael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G


Fowler, Gerry
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wqlden, Brian (All Saints)


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gregory, Arnold
Molly, William
Welis, William (Walsall, N.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Murray, Albert
Winnick, David


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric



Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Maltey, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hilton, W. S.
Oram, Albert E.
Mr.JosephHarper and


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Oswald, Thomas
Mr.Ioan L. Evans.

Clause 7

GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO DEALING WITH MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 5, line 36, leave out 'and'.

No. 9 in line 38, at end insert:
and
(c) the provisions of section (Postponement of restrictions in relation to exports) of this Act'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 8

PROVISIONS AS TO MANUFACTURE AND WHOLESALE DEALING

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 6, line 23, leave out 'and (b)' and insert 'to (c)'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 9

EXEMPTIONS FOR DOCTORS, DENTISTS, VETERINARY SURGEONS AND VETERINARY PRACTITIONERS

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 24, after 'herd' insert' not exceeding 100 animals'.
Our discussions in Committee made it clear that veterinary surgeons can drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill. I will not go over the whole argument again. The Clause relates to the important practice of getting together in a group practice. As the Clause stands, veterinary surgeons in a group practice will be exempted from the provisions of Clauses 7 and 8. Therefore, they will be able to manufacture and supply drugs for the animals under their control, and in addition they will be able to do it for their colleagues in another group practice, which may be in another part of the United Kingdom.
8.45 p.m.
We are talking about group practices which could manufacture drugs for a very large number of animals—over 1,000, and perhaps over 5,000 or 6,000 head of cattle, and 10,000 to 30,000 head of sheep. I am not talking about products such as vaccines, serum or plasma, but solely about medicinal products specially prepared at the request of another veterinary surgeon.
I know that many veterinary practitioners and surgeons and their professional bodies do not like the idea of having a number inserted, whether it be 100, 500 or 1,000. But unless subsection (2,b) is to make an absolute mockery of the Clause, there must be a restriction.
The Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me explaining his views, and I am very grateful. Nobody wants to restrict the right of the veterinary surgeon to manufacture a drug he believes is right for a particular animal or herd. But when one comes to a group practice manufacturing drugs for a large number of animals, as could happen, then the whole purpose of Clauses 7 and 8 goes by the board.
As he did in his letter to me, the Parliamentary Secretary may rest his argument on a later Clause under which

regulations and orders can be made to limit this provision should it be found that something has gone wrong in practice. That is the wrong way of going about things. It is closing the stable door after the horse has gone. When he finds that the provisions of Clauses 7 and 8 are being flouted, the Minister will make an order to stop that happening. It will be too late, and it could be very dangerous.
One short example is that an application could be made to the Commission for a product licence for a veterinary drug which is turned down on grounds of efficacy and even of safety. Yet under subsection (2)(b) a group veterinary practice could manufacture it for thousands of head of cattle, and if their neighbours wish to try it on their cattle as well they could be asked to manufacture it for them. So a drug turned down by the Commission could be manufactured by veterinary practitioners, with the help of pharmacists, for a very large number of animals throughout the country. That is not the Minister's intention.
That is why I ask the House to accept the limit of 100. It is an arbitrary figure, but a limit must be fixed somewhere, and I ask the House to accept it as the best compromise that can be arrived at.

Mr. John Mackie: The Amendment would restrict the preparation of medicinal products by a veterinarian for a colleague to the case where the herd to be treated does not exceed 100 animals. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, the figure in the Amendment is very arbitrary. The Amendment is impracticable. How would the veterinarian preparing the product know the size of the herd? He knows full well that it can vary as animals are bought and sold and so on.
What is to happen when veterinarians in group practice or partnerships prepare medicinal products for each other? Why stop a veterinarian from preparing a product for his colleagues when any one of them could get the product prepared by a pharmacist? Or is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we must impose the same arbitrary restriction on pharmacists? The hon. Member will not be surprised if I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
The Amendment stems from a fear among hon. Members opposite that


veterinarians, in particular, are going to start turning into large-scale manufacturers of all sorts of medicinal products. The hon. Gentleman rather suggested that. We do not share these fears. It is a question of balance between the practitioner's time-honoured freedom to prescribe what he thinks is right for his patients—animal or human—and the possibility of the practitioner becoming a manufacturer of drugs. We think that, in present circumstances, we have got the balance about right, and if it becomes necessary to change it we can do so.
As the hon. Gentleman suggested during the Committee stage, we have consulted the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, the British Veterinary Association, the Pharmaceutical Society and the National Farmers' Union, and they agree that Clause 9 seems a fair and reasonable way of dealing with the complex issues involved. They also think that it would be impracticable and unduly restrictive in present circumstances to attempt to control veterinarians any further.
Another Amendment has been put down by hon. Members opposite to safeguard the practitioner's right to prescribe and to get his prescriptions dispensed. I am sure, therefore, that they will agree that veterinarians must be free to prepare what they consider to be the most suitable medicinal products for the effective treatment of any animals under their care.
It follows that it is also right and proper for one veterinarian to be able to get one of his colleagues to prepare a product for him without having to go round counting the number of animals in the herd in order to ensure that there are not more than one hundred. For instance, a veterinarian acting as consultant to another might prepare some particular remedy which had previously been used successfully in treating the condition concerned.
The hon. Gentleman said that veterinarians could drive a horse and cart through the Bill. I should point out that we have, nevertheless, carefully contained the veterinarian. To be exempt from the licensing arrangements, a medicinal product has to be specially prepared for administration to a particular animal or herd and has to be supplied to a

person having possession or control of that animal or herd. We must have—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has— faith in veterinarians that this is what they will do and that they will not go in for wholesale manufacture.
Over and above that, there are severe restrictions on the preparation of vaccines, plasma and sera. No poultry vaccines may be prepared unless they have been licensed and the preparation of other vaccines is limited to those specially prepared for the treatment of a particular patient from material derived from the individual animal and must be administered to the same animal.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was not thinking of autogenous vaccines but this is made clear in Clause 9 (2) (b). This exemption is necessary to allow the time-honoured treatment in this way of certain conditions such as warts in cattle and other localised infections to continue.
We must also allow veterinarians who prepare a serum or plasma to treat certain conditions within a herd. In this form of treatment, it is important that the serum or plasma should contain antibodies against the particular strain or organism present in the environment. This means, in effect, obtaining it from apparently healthy animals in the herd which is exposed to that strain of organism. It follows that serum or plasma obtained from animals in one herd might well be useless for the treatment of animals in another, so that the exemption does not lend itself to the abuse feared by the hon. Gentleman.
If, with the passage of time, a change is needed—if there are, for instance, further developments in inventivism—the exemption can be amended in accordance with Clause 15. In view of this explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. John Farr: I only intervene because it appears to me that the whole sense of this subsection depends on the interpretation of the term "medicinal product". That is interpreted at some length in Clause 116. I am not certain whether my hon. Friend's suggested amended figure of 100 on a herd basis is a correct one, but I call attention to the fact that many small farmers, who have difficulty in procuring


drugs such as penicillin and streptomycin, which are identified in the Bill as medicinal products, often fear to call in a veterinary surgeon for the treatment of small animals, such as weaner pigs or lambs, because the yet may charge three or four guineas, which is almost the cost of the animal concerned.
I intervene to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give further consideration to this point, which is of great concern to many farmers who breed pigs and lambs and who fear to call in a vet, with the result that the animal dies. This could well be prevented if the simple drugs such as penicillin and streptomycin were generally available for use by the farmer.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Parliamentary Secretary's answer was extremely unsatisfactory. He did not put forward a single reasonable ground for saying that my Amendment was impracticable. I concede that 100 is an arbitrary figure and should perhaps be 200, but he should have further consultations with the people concerned so as to fix a proper figure if he is not satisfied with 100. Whatever figure is fixed is always unsatisfactory, but a figure must be fixed, otherwise one is relying on the good sense and good nature of the veterinary profession. They are most honourable and reputable people, but the Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that there have in the past been cases where live vaccine has been manufactured by veterinary surgeons and disseminated through the north of England. That happened not many years ago, and it could happen again, not with live vaccine but with other drugs.
My submission is that the difficulties raised by the hon. Gentleman are covered. I am not trying to stop the veterinary surgeon from being allowed to prescribe and manufacture whatever drugs he wishes for any animal or small herd, or from asking a consultant to manufacture it. I am saying that some provision should be put into the Bill to stop the whole purpose of the Bill being flouted. The Bill deals with safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products, be those veterinary or human. If a veterinary surgeon, a vet in group practice or a consultant, is to be allowed to get round those provisions, I say that this is wrong and should be stopped,

and I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Amendment.

Mr. Mackie: I do not think the point raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) comes under this Amendment, but I will take note of what he says. I appreciate the point, but I do not think that vets charge three or four guineas a visit.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) destroys his own case by saying, "Fix a figure, any figure will do." This is practically what he said. As he knows, needs are changing, there are small herds, large herds, and there are companies with herds up to one thousand. As I said in my opening remarks, it is impracticable and arbitrary to fix the figure, we have had consultations again and again, and I am sorry that I cannot follow his argument for this restriction.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I find it hard to realise that we are still talking about safety, quality, and efficacy. It seems to me that we are now discussing administrative convenience, which is not quite so important.
We on this side of the House do not suggest that there is any reason why the veterinary profession should abuse this legislation, but why give its members an incentive to do so? Why show a bias in favour of those who might be dishonest or sensible enough to take advantage of a loophole which the Minister refuses to close?
As it stands, the Bill allows a large group practice to become, in effect, a group of manufacturers. If they intend to market their products, no doubt they will require a licence, but if the use of the products is confined to the group practice, the manufacturing unit escapes all the licensing provisions. What is the effect when a group of veterinary practitioners in group practice set up such a manufacturing and importing unit, which I understand has happened, for reasons of efficiency and to serve their customers? I am thinking of a practice which covers a large area. Naturally, the veterinary surgeons concerned use the products which their unit produces, because they regard them as more efficacious, safe and of higher quality, and I suspect that they are also extremely competitive in price.
Is the Minister happy in that such a unit escapes all the proposed licensing provisions? However unselfish and desirable the motives of those who set up such a unit, I do not see why they should be privileged in this way.

Mr. Mackie: It appears that neither the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) nor the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) listened to the argument in the latter part or my speech. I pointed out that we have carefully contained the veterinarians by the fact that, to be exempt from the licensing arrangements, a medicinal product must be specially prepared for administering to a particular animal or herd, and so on. If a group of veterinarians decides to set up a manufacturing unit and to market the products, they will

require to comply with the licensing provisions.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The wording is to the effect that the restrictions do not apply to anything done by a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary practitioner which
relates to a medicinal product specially prepared for administration to a particular animal or herd which is under his care, and consists of manuacturing … the products to a person having the possession or control of that animal or herd.
That is as wide as one could wish. There is no restriction. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 129.

Division No. 227.]
AYES
[9.4 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fisher, Nigel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bell, Ronald
Fietcher-Cooke, Charles
Onslow, Cranley


Biffen, John
Fortescue, Tim
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Foster, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gibson-Watt, David
Pink, R. Bonner


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pym, Francis


Body, Richard
Gresham Cooke, R.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Braine, Bernard
Grieve, Percy
Rawtinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Rhyt Williams, Sir Brandon


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hawkins, Paul
Ridsdale, Julian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hirst, Geofirey
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Burden, F. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Holland, Philip
Scott, Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinetead)
Silvester, Frederick


Corfield, F. V.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, Peter
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Webster, David


Doughty, Charles
MacmilIan, Maurice (Farnham)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Drayson, G. B.
Maude, Angus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Emery, Peter
More, Jasper



Errington, Sir Eric
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Farr, John
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Anthony Royle and




Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cronin, John
Forrester, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fowler, Gerry


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Gourlay, Harry


Beaney, Alan
Dell, Edmund
Gregory, Arnold


Bidwell, Sydney
Dewar, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Blackburn, F.
Dickens, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dobson, Ray
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Booth, Albert
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Boston, Terence
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Eadie, Alex
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ellis, John
Hilton, W. S.


Coleman, Donald
Ennals, David
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Concannon, J. D.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Homer, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)




Hoy, James
Mendelson, J. J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mikardo, Ian
Rosa, Rt. Hn. William


Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Ryan, John


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Molloy, William
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Moonman, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Murray, Albert
Silverman, Julius


Judd, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Skeffington, Arthur


Kelley, Richard
O'Malley, Brian
Slater, Joseph


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Oram, Albert E.
Small, William


Lawson, George
Oswald, Thomas
Snow, Julian


Ledger, Ron
Owen, Wilt (Morpeth)
Swingler, Stephen


Lestor, Miss Joan
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Luard, Evan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tuck, Raphael


Lubbock, Eric
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


McBride, Neil
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacColl, James
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David (Consett)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthorglen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mackie, John
Richard, Ivor
Winnick, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


MacPherson, Malcolm
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)



Marquand, David
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roebuck, Roy
Mr. Joseph Harper and




Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Clause 10

EXEMPTIONS FOR PHARMACISTS

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 1, leave out 'subsection (3) of this section' and insert 'the next following subsection'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient if we also discussed Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 25 and 26.

Mr. Mackie: This Amendment paves the way for a new qualification to Clause 10(1). Amendment No. 13 is a new subsection (2) and is essentially the old subsection (3) applied now only to subsection (1). It qualifies the exemption relating to pharmacists in subsection (1), so that it does not apply to a poultry vaccine or to any other vaccine, plasma or serum for administration to an animal or herd unless:

(a) for a vaccine, it is specially prepared for administration to the animal from which it is derived; or
(b) for plasma or a serum, it is specially prepared for administration to one or more animals in the herd from which it is derived, that is the same qualifications apply as in the case of veterinarians in Clause 9(3).

In the case of either (a) or (b) it must be prepared in accordance with a prescription given by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner.
9.15 p.m.
Amendment No. 14 paves the way for the next Amendments. Amendment No. 15 revises the old subsection (2) so that it has the effect of preventing a pharmacist from undertaking the preparation of vaccines, plasma or sera at the request of a stockowner or herdsman.
After further consideration of the points raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West in Committee, we have come to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate for a pharmacist to undertake the preparation of vaccines, plasma or sera at the request of a stock-owner or herdsman, as would be the case as subsection (2) stands. On the other hand, we think that we must allow a pharmacist acting under subsection (1) to prepare vaccines, plasma or sera in accordance with a prescription by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner. This, of course, excludes the preparation of poultry vaccines which are all subject to the licensing arrangements. This procedure is in line with the position in Clause 9 under which one veterinarian may call upon another to supply him with these substances, and we see no added complications in his being able to call upon a pharmacist. Indeed, to fail to give this exemption would mean preventing a pharmacist from carrying out operations which his training equips him to do. These Amendments carry out these changes.
I emphasise that the exemptions for both veterinarians and pharmacists refer only to circumstances in which the use of the vaccine, and so on, does not present a disease risk; that is to say, autogenous vaccines used in the same animals from which the material is derived or a plasma or serum used within the same herd from which it is derived.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for these Amendments, which go a long way to satisfying the anxieties which we expressed in Committee. I was, however, a little disturbed when he said that the exemptions would apply only to autogenous vaccines. I am grateful for his accepting that it would be wrong for a stockowner to be able to go to a pharmacist and say that he wants this or that and for the pharmacist to make it up. But I am still apprehensive, following the unhappy attitude of the hon. Gentleman to our last Amendment, about the possibility of a pharmacist being asked by a group practice to manufacture plasma, serum or vaccine on a very large scale. The Amendment still leaves this door open.
However, that is not a point which I wish to pursue at this moment. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having met three-quarters of the case which we put forward in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 13, in page 8, line 13, at end insert:
(2) The exemption conferred by the preceding subsection does not apply to a vaccine specially prepared for administration to poultry, and does not apply to any other vaccine or any plasma or serum prepared or dispensed for administration to an animal or herd unless—

(a) in the case of a vaccine, it is specially prepared for administration to the animal from which it is derived, or
 (b) in the case of plasma or a serum, it is specially prepared for administration to one or more animals in the herd from which it is derived, 

and (in either case) it is so prepared in accordance with a prescription given by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner.

No. 14, in page 8, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'those'.

No. 15, in page 8, line 19, leave out from 'where' to end of line 34 and insert:

(a) the product is prepared or dispensed for administration to that person or to a person under his care, or

(b) the product, not being a vaccine, plasma or serum, is prepared or dispensed for administration to an animal or herd which is in the possession or under the control of that person.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 12

EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF HERBAL REMEDIES

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 9, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 10.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 16

TRANSITIONAL EXEMPTIONS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 11, line 29, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 42, after 'description', insert 'other than veterinary drugs'.
My purpose in inserting these words in Clause 16(4) is to try to close what I believe is an existing loophole for the importation of substandard drugs into this country from perhaps Eire and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt. If hon. Members will speak up a little it will help the reporters.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am very sorry. I will certainly follow your advice, Mr. Speaker.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is by far the best at speaking up on this side of the House.
The purpose of the Amendment is to close an existing loophole in the transitional exemptions concerning the importation of drugs. I am anxious that no substandard drugs, particularly penicillins, antibiotics and the like, are brought into this country illegally, and which the Parliamentary Secretary and his Ministry are unable to stop at the moment. I believe that this is happening on a large scale. I want to make


certain that this practice ceases. Therefore, the Minister should have the power and the ability to stop it. I have moved to insert the words "other than veterinary drugs", because I believe that they will have this effect.

Mr. John Mackie: This Amendment would have the effect of making all imports of veterinary drugs without a product licence illegal when, on the first appointed day, the licensing arrangements under Clauses 7 and 8 become effective.
I appreciate the fears of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), but it is unlikely that the licensing authority would be able to deal with all the licences which would be needed and, irrespective of need or quality, some imports would therefore come to a stop.
I assume that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to be able to prevent the import at the very first opportunity of any undesirable products. But, as I think they recognise, we are not aware in every case what these products are or in any case whether, having regard to their intended use, they are necessarily undesirable. This can only be discovered by considering each imported product on its merits, which effectively means the sort of considerations entailed in deciding whether to grant a product licence.
This cannot be done overnight, as the hon. Gentleman must appreciate. Moreover, we have to avoid creating a chaotic situation in relation to the import of veterinary drugs. This is why we have transitional provisions. I think, therefore, that, although the object is a worthy one—and we know that there are often importations of these drugs about which we do not know enough—it really is not one that can be achieved in one bite.
We must accept some transitional arrangements, and we believe that the ones devised are satisfactory for this purpose. Briefly, an imported product will be protected in the first instance by subsection (4), so that it will be new imports that become subject to the licensing procedure on the first appointed day. Later, in accordance with Clause 17, other appointed days will be fixed for specified classes of products, and for these the protection given by Clause 16 then ends.
Clause 25(2) then entitles a person protected by Clause 16 to a licence of right. But such licences may be revoked, either as they come up for renewal or, as the need arises, at any time in accordance with Clause 28 and the following Clauses. Priority will be given to those products and licences which appear to deserve early attention, but it is impossible to accept that all these matters can be dealt with immediately the licensing arrangements come into operation. Because of that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting that the present situation is undesirable. The main purpose of tabling the Amendment is to draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention once again the fact that we are extremely concerned about these substandard and illegal drugs coming in, and we want their importation stopped at the earliest possible moment.
I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerated the impracticability of stopping the importation of these drugs immediately. I accept that it is difficult to insist that from the first appointed day a product licence will be necessary for every veterinary drug that is imported, but I hope that he will take note of what has been said about the need to stop these veterinary drugs coming in because they can do untold damage.
So far, I have addressed myself solely to the veterinary aspect of this problem, but I am sure that hon. Members appreciate the danger of allowing the import of drugs of this kind which are used for treating human beings.
I mentioned Eire and Northern Ireland as two sources for the supply of these sub-standard drugs, but they do, of course, come from other places, too. I should not like it to go on record that those are the only two places from which these drugs are originating.
If the hon. Gentleman will watch the position carefully and use his best endeavours to ensure that this traffic is stopped at the earliest opportunity and that the product licence procedure is brought in as quickly as is humanly possible, I shall be satisfied, and shall not press the Amendment.

Mr. Mackie: I said that priority would be given to dealing with these


products which appear to deserve early attention. The hon. Gentleman must realise that if we were to accept the Amendment it would stop the importation of everything, good and bad. That is the difficulty. I appreciate what he has said, and we will keep a careful watch on the situation.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) is seeking leave to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

FACTORS RELEVANT TO DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR LICENCE

Mr. Fortescue: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 13, line 5, leave out 'in particular' and insert 'only'.

Mr. Speaker: With that we are taking the following Amendments: Amendment No. 22, in Clause 20, page 15, line 2, leave out 'expedient' and insert:
',or advisable on the ground of safety, efficacy or quality,'.
Amendment No. 28, in Clause 24, page 19, line 16, leave out 'expedient' and insert:
',or advisable on the ground of safety, efficacy or quality,'.
Amendment No. 46, in Clause 34, page 29, line 21, leave out 'expedient' and insert:
', or advisable on the ground of safety'.

Mr. Fortescue: We now come back to the topic which we have already discussed this evening, namely, the importance of the three qualifications of safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs. The first Amendment stands on its own, but the other three go together and are relevant to the same point.
In committee, we moved an almost identical Amendment to persuade the Minister that it would be proper for him to omit the provision that the licensing authority should have regard in particular to the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs in granting a licence, and should have regard only to those qualities.
The Minister resisted the Amendment, but he yielded a little at the end, because he thought that the licensing authority should in no way be limited in its consideration of applications by being able to refer only to those three qualities. After some persuasive speeches he came to the following conclusion:
I have listened to what both hon. Gentlemen have said and I think that we might look at this again. I am not going to say more than that. On one side I feel we must not constrain the authority too much;"—
and that was the point he was making throughout—
on the other side I feel that it is reasonable to say that without a clear prescription of its rules the authority might be prejudiced in its activities. We will see whether, somewhere between these two points of view, both of which are reasonable, we can achieve some degree of agreement.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 28th March, 1968; c. 273–274.]
We have waited in vain for that agreement to be reached and for what the hon. Gentleman accepted as the reasonableness of our case to be translated into an Amendment. Finally, in despair, we have put down this Amendment, to see whether we can persuade the Minister to take some action on his hon. Friend's undertaking. This Amendment is very much on the lines of an earlier one to the effect that we believe that safety, quality and efficacy are the only criteria for judging applications for licences, and not the criteria by which "in particular" they should be judged.
9.30 p.m.
The other three Amendments seek to omit the word "expedient" and to insert other words. We pointed out gently in Committee that expediency is not a quality for which people are enthusiastic and that to accuse a Minister of expediency was not a compliment. We sought to have the word omitted altogether but the Minister said that the only criterion then left for the grant or refusal of licences in Clause 20, for decisions on variation or renewal of licences in Clause 24 and for decisions on clinical and field trial certificates in Clause 32 would be for the licensing authority to decide whether the issue or renewal was necessary. The words in the Bill are "necessary or expedient" and we sought to have the word "expedient" omitted so that the only criterion left would be necessity. The


Minister said that this would make the whole thing inflexible:
If the reference to expediency were omitted, even in a case where the expert committee had advised refusal of a licence the Ministers, as licensing authority, would have to ask themselves, 'Do we therefore consider it necessary to refuse the licence, and has the expert committee established that there is no alternative?' The true position might well be that in a balance of considerations relating to safety, efficacy and quality,"—
which is exactly what we are trying to say—
the committee thought it inadvisible that the product should be marketed. It is exactly what it was set up to advise on, and what the licensing system is set up to support."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 2nd April, 1968; c. 304.]
Therefore, in our ever-reasonable frame of mind, and in an attempt to help him, in these Amendments, instead of simply omitting the word "expedient", we propose that it should be replaced with the phrase "or advisable on the ground of safety, efficacy or quality", which is precisely what the Minister said he would like to see in the Bill. This co-operation from our side in his drafting must be unparalleled. We have been trying to do what he wanted to do. We know that he has been very busy, and we have done it for him. We hope that he will accept the Amendments, because they are exactly from his own mouth in Committee.
Amendment No. 46 would provide for the consideration of grounds of safety only in respect of clinical or field trial certificates, where there can be no question of quality or efficacy but only of safety, because the trial has not yet happened and it is not known what the efficacy or quality will be.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) is beyond dispute, making all other considerations in the Clause appear completely irrelevant. It is imperative that the licensing authority is absolutely sure of its terms of reference, and these should be completely and closely defined.
In debating the last Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) referred to the activities of pirate drug companies, which are bringing in a tremendous amount of

undercover material and putting it on the market for general sale. There is great need for the licensing authority to clamp down on these activities. I hope that, once established under the Bill, the authority will run these pirate drug companies out of business.
It is important, therefore, that we get the authority's terms of reference absolutely right, which brings us to the three key words; safety, quality and efficacy. These are the bye words to the whole of the Bill and they have been often repeated in Committee and in the House. They are the three words governing the activities of the reputable pharmaceutical companies, which represent the vast majority of this industry. There are, however, some disreputable elements and it is against them that this legislation is aimed. It is in the Ministers interest to ensure that the Bill will work efficiently and give the right sort of backing to the Commission and those it chooses to carry out this task. His acceptance of the Amendment would enable him to ensure that the Commission does its work properly.

Mr. K. Robinson: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) moving Amendments with what appears at first sight to be impeccable logic. He is a skilled verbal prestidigitator. What he did on this occasion—not for the first time in the proceedings on the Bill—is to take an objection which I had made to a previous Amendment, frame a new Amendment to take that into account and overlook the fact that it might not have been the only objection that I had to the earlier Amendment.
The purpose of this series of Amendments is, broadly, to make safety, efficacy and quality the only criteria for the grant or refusal of a licence in certain circumstances. The first Amendment would make them the only factors to be taken into account in considering a product licence application. The second would make them the only relevant factors for refusing to grant a licence. The third and fourth would make them the only factors for a refusal to renew a licence or decision to issue a new licence or clinical or field trial certificate instead of renewing the existing one.
The first Amendment is subject to the same technical objection as one of identical effect moved by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) in Committee in that it is inconsistent with Clause 19(2), which requires further matters to be taken into account in relation to imported products. The provisions to which the second and third Amendments relate are concerned not only with product licences but also with manufacturers' and wholesale dealers' licences. As such licences are likely to cover a large number of descriptions of medicinal products, there would be doubt as to precisely to what the criteria of safety, efficacy and quality were intended to relate.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave an example of a consideration other than safety, efficacy and quality that might be taken into account. It was that the licensing authority might have ascertained that something in the application for a product licence was false in a material particular. There is no reason why the licensing authority should be barred from taking such a consideration into account. On the question of renewals, it might be that the characteristics of the product no longer corresponded to those at the time of the original granting of the licence, and it would be desirable to issue a new licence instead of renewing the old one, or alternatively of refusing to renew.
In so far as the Amendment relating to refusal or renewal would cover manufacturers' licences, the matters mentioned in Clause 19(4) on which the original licence was based might well have changed in a material way that would have given ground for varying or even revoking the licence. It would be onerous to show in all cases that safety, efficacy or quality was involved and also inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 28 which did not stipulate this.
These are not necessarily technical points. I can see no reason why the licensing authority should be forbidden to take such factors into account unless at the same time it can be demonstrated that safety, efficacy and quality are also involved, and this would involve the expert committee. Of course the principal factors are undoubtedly these three, but it is being far too rigid to insist

that only these factors should be relevant.
No applicant or licence holder has any need to fear arbitrary refusals to grant a licence. The factors to be taken into account must not be extraneous to the general purposes of the Bill and in cases of refusal for the granting of a licence otherwise than in accordance with the application the applicant or licence holder has the right of representations under the Bill.
We looked at this matter again, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary undertook that we should, but without commitment. We still think the Bill is satisfactory in its present wording and I must ask the House to reject these Amendments.

Mr. Fortescue: I speak again by leave of the House. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman regarded me as a prestidigitator, but if I am it must be catching. The right hon. Gentleman has repaid me in his own coin, because, when he was explaining to the House why the insertion of the words
advisable on grounds of safety, efficacy or quality
he omitted to say that these words are alternative to the word "necessary".
If the Clause is not amended in the way we seek to amend it, the licensing authority could renew or refuse a licence if it thought it necessary or advisable to do so. We would retain the word "necessary". It would be perfectly proper for the licensing authority to say that a licence should be granted because in its view it was right for it to be granted, but to refuse a licence because it considered it was expedient to refuse it would be in the realms of the critical. We should like the licensing authority to have some terms of reference for its reference to expediency. What better terms could there be than the three qualities written into the Bill?
If the grant or refusal of a licence is to depend on necessity or advisability on grounds of safety, efficacy or quality, the authority would be on firm ground, but since the criterion is the ground of expediency the sands begin to shift. I am sorry to have to advise my hon. Friends to vote in favour of these Amendments.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 127.

Division No. 228.]
AYES
[9.44 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Foster, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant-Ferris, R.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grieve, Percy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eidon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Braine, Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hawkins, Paul
Ridsdale, Julian


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Russell, Sir Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Scott, Nicholas


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hunt, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Silvester, Frederick


Cordle, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sinclair, Sir George


Corfield, F. V.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Speed, Keith


Cradclock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Ward, Dame Irene


Doddt-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Webster, David


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Drayson, G. B.
Macmlllan, Maurice (Farnham)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Emery, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Worstey, Marcus


Errington, Sir Eric
More, Jasper



Farr, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fisher, Nigel
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Anthony Royle and


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Hector Monro.


Fortescue, Tim
Onslow, Cranley





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Hilton, W. S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Armstrong, Ernest
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Murray, Albert


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Homer, John
Ogden, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
O'Malley, Brian


Beaney, Alan
Hoy, James
Oram, Albert E.


Bidwell, Sydney
Huckfield, Lesile
Oswald, Thomas


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Booth, Albert
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Palmer, Arthur


Boston, Terence
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Park, Trevor


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cronin, John
Lawson, George
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ledger, Ron
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor Miss Joan
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lewis, Arthur (W.Ham, N.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Luard Evan
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dickens, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dobson, Ray
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roebuck, Roy


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McBride, Neil
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ellis, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rowlands, E. (Gardiff, N.)


Ennals David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Ennals, David
Mackie, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hanoton, N. E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackie, John



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silverman, Julius


Fowler, Gerry
Marquand, David
Skeffington, Arthur


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Slater, Joseph


Courlay, Harry
Mendelson, J. J.
Small, William


Gregory, Arnold
Mikardo, Ian
Snow Julian


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tinn, James


Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Tuck, Raphael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William
Urwin, T. W.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moonman, Eric
Varley, Eric G.




Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Wells, William (Wasall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Watkins, David (Consett)
Winnick, David
Mr. Alan Fitch.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to a Government starred Amendment, Amendment No. 112.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 112 in page 13, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert:
(2) In taking into consideration the efficacy for a particular purpose of medicinal products of a description to which such an application relates, the licensing authority shall leave out of account any question whether medicinal products of another description would or might be equally or more efficacious for that purpose:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring the licensing authority, in considering the safety of medicinal products of a particular description, in relation to a purpose for which they are proposed to be administered, to leave out of account any question whether medicinal products of another description, being equally or more efficacious for that purpose, would or might be safer in relation to that purpose.
Even if you had not introduced the Amendment as you did, Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that, having made an oblique reference to a starred Amendment in the names of hon. Members opposite, I intended anyway to apologise to the House for this solitary Government starred Amendment.
No doubt hon. Members opposite look at lines 17 to 20 with a certain amount of retrospective glee, since they were inserted when we were caught napping at the very beginning of one sitting at 10.30 in the morning. In the debate on their Amendment at the previous sitting on 28th March, I assured the Committee, as I had previously assured the House on Second Reading, that it was not intended that comparative efficacy by itself should determine the decision whether to grant or refuse a licence. Nevertheless, efficacy must be taken into account in relation to toxicity, and the Amendment which was then under discussion and was subsequently carried would preclude taking account of comparative efficacy even where this was relevant to the safety of the product under consideration.
The Amendment carries out the intention as I described it on Second Reading and safeguards the point about comparative efficacy in relation to safety which was the main ground of our opposition to the Amendment in Committee.

I think that the Amendment carries out my undertaking, and I move it despite the fact that I felt that we should have been entitled perhaps simply to remove the words inserted in Committee.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I must admit that I see with a certain sadness the removal of the words which sneaked in at 10.30 one morning, but I thank the Minister for substantially meeting the point which they tried to make. The Minister's wording leaves out any question of relative efficacy but brings back the question of relative safety and makes it quite clear that where one drug is clearly safer than another, the fact that the other is equally efficacious does not force the Commission to license it. We have no quarrel with that.
I am grateful to the Minister for rewording the provision and carrying out his undertaking, even if we see our words disappear with a certain amount of sorrow.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

PROCEDURE ON REFERENCE TO APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION

Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 23, with which I suggest we take Government Amendments No. 24, No. 108 and No. 109.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 17, line 2, at end insert:
'or
(d) propose, on grounds not relating to safety, quality or efficacy, to refuse to grant the licence, or to grant a licence otherwise than in accordance with the application'.
When we discussed in Committee an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary accepted the principle underlying it, although he found that the wording was not entirely acceptable. We promised to put down different Amendments which would meet the same objective. This was to fill a gap in the procedure in cases where there had been representations to a committee or the


Commission on questions of safety, efficacy or quality, but where it was proposed on grounds other than those not to grant the application, or not to grant it in full. Such other grounds would be of the kind that in the absence of considerations referable to the committee or Commission would have been dealt with under Clause 22(2).
Amendment No. 23 adds these other grounds as paragraph (d) in subsection (5). Amendment No. 24 adds a provision to subsection 6 requiring the licensing authority, as under Clause 22(2), to state its proposals and—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Medicines Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

Mr. K. Robinson: The cither two Amendments—No. 108 and No. 109— make similar Amendments to the corresponding provisions in Schedule 2 relating to suspension, revocation or variation of a licence.

Mr. Fortescue: In the absence of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), I want to say that we on this side of the House welcome these Amendments and are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for fulfilling his undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 24, in page 17, line 16, at end insert:
'and in a case falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection (whether it also falls within any of the other paragraphs of that subsection or not) the notification shall include a statement of the proposals of the licensing authority and of the reasons for them'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 23

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO EFFECT OF MANUFACTURER'S LICENCE

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 18, line 6, at beginning insert:
'Subject to the next following subsection'.

No. 26, in page 18, line 23, at end insert:
(3) The exemption conferred by the last preceding subsection—

(a) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, or
(b) in so far as it relates to the manufacture or assembly of a medicinal product to the order of a pharmacist,

does not apply to a vaccine specially prepared for administation to poultry.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 24

DURATION AND RENEWAL OF LICENCE

Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 18, line 40, at beginning insert:
'Subject to the following provisions of this section'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Government Amendments No. 29, No. 45 and No. 47.

Mr. Snow: These two pairs of Amendments fulfil the promise made in Standing Committee on 4th April to meet the intention of Amendments put down by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). Under these Clauses as they now stand, a situation could arise in which the licensing authority had not made its decision on renewal before the period of validity of the licence or certificate had expired, so that the holder would either have to carry on in breach of Clause 7, Clause 8 or Clause 31 or interrupt his operations pending the licensing authority's decision. Paragraph (a) of the new subsection (6) of Clause 24 and of the new subsection (7) of Clause 34 would keep the licence or certificate in force until the licensing authority's decision to renew or to refuse renewal.
Further, paragraph (b) in these two subsections deals with a related point not covered in the hon. Gentleman's Amendments moved in Committee. If the licensing authority's decision is not to renew the licence or certificate or to renew with modifications, and a point is reached where the holder applies to the High Court under Clause 98, the Court has power to make an interim order under Clause 98(3)(a) suspending the licensing authority's decision pending the Court's determination of the application, but this is not enough to prevent the licence or


certificate from expiring. The provision in paragraph (b) accordingly keeps the licence or certificate alive during the period of suspension. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that he did his duty very well and that we have aided him in the matter.

Mr. Fisher: I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for implementing the undertaking given by the Minister to me in Committee—for which we were obliged —in order to meet the gap revealed by my Amendments, but for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has moved his own Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 29, in page 19, line 32, at end insert:
(6) Where an application for the renewal of a licence under this Act has been duly made—

(a) the licence shall not cease to be in force by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section before the licensing authority have determined the application, and
(b) If by an interim order made under section 98(3)(a) of this Act the operation of the decision of the licensing authority on the application is suspended, the licence shall not cease to be in force by virtue of those provisions so long as the operation of the decision continues to be suspended by the order.—[Mr. Snow.]

Clause 26

SCOPE OF LICENCE OF RIGHT IN DIFFERENT CASES

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 20, line 9, leave out 'subsection (3)'.

Amendment No. 31: in page 20, line 19, leave out ' subsections (2) and (3)' and insert ' subsection (2)'.—[Mr. Snow.]

Clause 28

GENERAL POWER TO SUSPEND REVOKE OR VARY LICENCES

Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 24, line 1, leave out ' not been complied with ' and insert:
'to a material extent been contravened'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 48 and 49.

Mr. Snow: In the Standing Committee on 4th April I accepted in principle, on

behalf of my right hon. Friend, certain Amendments which had been put down by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), and promised to put down Amendments at a later stage in conformity with the drafting requirements.
The first three Amendments introduce the concept of "to a material extent" into Clause 28(3)(b) and (c) and 28(4)(c). The two Amendments to Clause 35 amend Clause 35(2)(b) and (c) in a manner corresponding to the Amendments to Clause 28 to which I have referred. There is, incidentally, nothing in Clause 35 corresponding to Clause 28(4)(c).
The amended grounds for revocation will, therefore, be that any of the provisions of the product licence or certificate has to a material extent been contravened; that products fail to a material extent to correspond to the characteristics by reference to which the licence or certificate was granted; that any of the provisions of a manufacturer's or wholesaler's licence has to a material extent been contravened.
Our wording in Clause 28(3)(b) and Clause 35(2)(b) has not quite the same import as the Amendments put down in Committee by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston. His Amendments referred to non-compliance "with any material provision". We think that the relevant matter here should not be whether a particular licence provision is material but whether the non-compliance is a material matter. It could well be that a provision that in itself was important had been contravened in a technical way which was of no practical importance. In the case of a contravention of a less important provision, the importance of the non-compliance would be judged in relation to the importance of the provision.

Mr. Fortescue: All I have to say is, "Thank you very much; thank you very very much". I agree entirely that the Parliamentary Secretary's edition of my Amendment is a great improvement. It is obvious that what I meant was a material contravention rather than the contravention of a material provision. I welcome the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 33, in page 24, line 8, leave out 'do not' and insert:
'fail to a material extent to'.

No. 34, in page 24, line 45, leave out ' not been complied with' and insert:
'to a material extent been contravened'.—[Mr. Snow.]

Mr. Speaker: Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 fall on new Clause 1. We come now to Amendment No. 38.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I rise to ask leave of the House to withdraw Amendment No. 38, which is concerned entirely with the provisions for clinical and field trials in terms of exports, in view of the promise which the Minister gave in the debate on new Clause 2 that he will bring in some such provision at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: We have dealt with Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43. We come now to Amendment No. 44.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 27, line 10, leave out from 'be' to 'advantageous' in line 11.
In moving the original new Clause, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that there will be a complete redraft of that part dealing with clinical and field trials. As a result, what I have to say now is not exactly relevant. If it is to be redrafted, there is not much point in trying to amend the existing wording. However, it would be useful if I tendered my advice to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in any redrafting, the words
my be beneficial to, or otherwise advantageous in relation to, the animal or animals
should be omitted.
The reason is simple. After such a field trial, it may be that the animal or animals concerned will have to be put to death so as to find whether the trial has been successful, whether an organ has been affected in this or that way, and whether the drug which has been administered has had the desired effect. It is difficult to stretch the English language to pretend that the word "beneficial" means killing the animal concerned. It is on that ground alone that I suggest that the words be omitted.
The whole concept of dealing with animals in the course of field trials is not the same as when one considers dealing with human beings. There are many excellent and wide-ranging regulations about cruelty to animals, but that does not come into it in this context, and I do not want it suggested that any cruelty should or could be practised. That is covered by existing regulations.
At the end of field trials concerning animals, in many cases the animals will be slaughtered, and the use of the words to which I have referred is not only wrong but could inhibit a great many field trials which are vital if the development of veterinary drugs is to continue, both here and overseas. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept my Amendment straight away, I hope that he will bear in mind what I have said in any redrafting of that part of the Bill dealing with field trials.

Mr. John Mackie: The words "beneficial to" are intended to indicate that the medicinal product itself may benefit the animal when administered to it. It has no bearing, for instance, on the possibility that the animal concerned may need to be slaughtered for the purposes of a post-mortem examination. This is not a direct effect of the drug itself on the animal.
The object of introducing the concept of benefit is to distinguish between a field trial and pure experimentation in a laboratory where the effects of the substance are not known. With the exception of a case where produce from an animal is to be used for human consumption—and our proposed Amendments will deal with this—we have no wish to control the administration of a drug in the process of development until experimental evidence is available as to its possible beneficial effect.
10.15 p.m.
It is at this stage that the requirement for a field trial certificate becomes relevant. The reference to
advantageous in relation to, the animal or animals".
is intended to cover administration of a medicinal product where the effect may be of advantage to an owner from the point of view of increasing productivity, etc., rather than directly to the animal—for example, preparations for de-horning cattle or something of that kind.
As my right hon. Friend has said, and I would reinforce it, we are most grateful for the valuable comments about field trials made during the Committee stage. As a result, we are proposing to revise and expand the provisions relating to field trials on the lines mentioned by my right hon. Friend. These will also include a broader definition of field trial, appropriate measures for safeguarding the consumer of animal products, which is a very important point, and provision for a greater measure of flexibility.
I am sorry that it is not possible to go into the details of what we have in mind but I hope that in the light of this explanation and since I gather that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was not going to press his Amendment and was seeking rather to hear our ideas on future Amendments, that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am, of course, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying what he is going to do and for taking the points we have made upstairs, but I must register my protest for he has had plenty of time. The way he comes to the House at the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour and says he has not had time to finish his consultations and therefore will produce the Amendments in another place is treating the House with a great deal of contempt.
It is not only in relation to field trials that we are in this difficult position. We are passing a Bill which the hon. Gentleman admits is defective in respect of field trials and he has rightly mentioned the important aspect of residual effects and the necessity for new trial provisions to safeguard consumers of animal products. That is, of course, right and necessary. The existing provisions of field trials are too narrow, but we should have the Amendment to discuss here rather than when they come back to us from another place. Exactly the same comment applies to the Amendments which I gather are to be made to Clause 36 of animal feeding stuffs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's indignation must not carry him out of order.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My feelings of indignation carried me a little beyond what is right and proper. I accept that the hon.

Gentleman will do what he has said with regard to this Amendment and we will see in due course what comes back from another place. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34

DURATION AND RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 28, line 41, at beginning insert:
'Subject to the following provisions of this section'.

No. 47, in page 29, line 39, at end insert:
(7) Where an application for the renewal of such a certificate has been duly made—

(a) the certificate shall not cease to be in force by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section before the licensing authority have determined the application, and
(b) if by an interim order made under section 98(3)(a) of this Act the operation of the decision of the licensing authority on the application is suspended, the certificate shall not cease to be in force by virtue of those provisions so long as the operation of the decision continues to be suspended by the order.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 35

SUSPENSION, REVOCATION OR VARIATION OF CERTIFICATE

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 30, line 9, leave out ' not been complied with ' and insert:
'to a material extent been contravened'.

No. 49, in page 30, line 16, leave out 'do not' and insert:
'fail to a material extent'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 39

OFFENCES UNDER PART II

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 33, line 45, at end, insert:
(2) Where any medicinal product or animal feeding stuff is imported in contravention of section 7, section 31 or section 36 of this Act, any person who, otherwise than for the purpose of performing or exercising a duty or power imposed or conferred by or under this Act or any other enactment, is in possession of the


product or feeding stuff knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it was so imported shall be guilty of an offence.
Before I start I should say I will bear in mind the strictures of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), which, it seems, gave him great pleasure to put forward.
The first of these Amendments introduces into Clause 39 a new offence of being in possession of a medicinal product or medicated animal feedingstuff knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it had been imported without a product licence or clinical or field trial certificate or, in the case of a feeding-stuff, in contravention of Clause 36. Although the first three lines of Clause 39(1) in the Bill make the act of importation in contravention of Clause 7, 31 and 36 an offence, the enforcement procedure at the port can never be comprehensive and so lines 42–45 in page 33 of the Bill as drafted, enable action to be taken after a product has been illegally brought into the country by making its possession for sale, supply or export without a licence an offence.
This part of the Clause would not cover the case of say, a farmer, who succeeded in importing illegally a feeding stuff. The present Amendment covers the position of a product or feeding stuff known or suspected to be imported in contravention of the licensing provisions.
The second Amendment, for the same reason introduces into Clause 59 a similar offence in relation to medicinal products—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with Amendment No. 51. There is nothing grouped with it.

Mr. Mackie: The present Amendment covers the case of a product illegally imported. There is a saving provision for persons enforcing the Bill such as authorised officers, who may find themselves in possession of such products or feeding stuffs in the course of their duty.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman said that it gave me satisfaction that he had not done his homework.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman please speak up.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not get satisfaction, but it does make things difficult

when the hon. Gentleman reads the wrong brief as he did just now. We are in a slight difficulty here, although I take the point in the Amendment about the feeding stuffs having come in illegally with the wrong type of medicinal product in them because it is difficult to stop them at the port of entry. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that people should be prevented from using them, but how does he intend to police this? It will be extremely difficult.
The other point of difficulty concerns animal feeding stuffs containing medicated products. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say earlier that entirely comprehensive and new Amendments would be brought in concerning animal feeding stuffs containing medicinal products. If this is so, it is difficult to see how we can discuss this now if we do not know what we are talking about. Are we talking about those with amino-acid, trace elements, or minerals?
The Amendments will be brought in in another place, and I must register my protest at the fact that we are being asked to do something which is quite wrong and in contempt of our procedure.
Having said that, I repeat I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman expects the arrangement to be adequately policed. There is a great deal of anxiety about producing legislation which it is difficult to enforce or which can be contravened.

Mr. Mackie: It is not a case of policing, it is simply a case of those people who are discovered in possession of these feeding stuffs committing an offence.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We are not in Committee; we are on Report.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 34, line 44, to leave out '(4)' and insert '(6)'.
This is a consequential numerical re-allocation resulting from the new subsection added to the Clause. Perhaps the House will excuse me for elaborating the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41

STANDARD PROVISIONS FOR LICENCES OR CERTIFICATES

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 37, line 10, after 'time' insert:
'after the relevant regulations are made and'.

Mr. Speaker: We are taking, at the same time, Amendment No. 55, in page 37, line 11, leave out 'the relevant regulations' and insert 'they'.
Amendment No. 56, in page 37, line 23, at end insert:
'with or without provision postponing the date as from which they are to be deemed to be so incorporated'.
and Amendment No. 57, in page 37, line 37, at end insert:
(8) Without prejudice to any direction given under subsection (6) of this section, where such an application is made—

(a) the operative standard provisions shall not be deemed to be incorporated in the licence or certificate to which the application relates before the licensing authority have made a decision on that application, and
(b) if an application under section 98 of this Act is made with respect to that decision, those provisions shall not be deemed to have been or to be so incorporated before the application under subsection (6) of this section has been finally disposed of;

and so much of subsection (7) of section 27 of this Act as relates to the time when an application is to be taken to be finally disposed of shall have effect for the purposes of this subsection as it has effect for the purposes of that section.

Mr. Robinson: These four Amendments arise out of a discussion in Committee on two Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). On that occasion I accepted that when application is being made under subsection (6) there might be a case for deferring the application of the new regulations to the licence until a final decision has been given under subsection (7).
Clause 41(6) applies where a licence or certificate is subject to standard provisions and amending regulations are made altering the standard provisions. Subsection (4) postpones the operation of the altered provisions for three months and subsection (6) enables the holder of a licence or certificate to apply to the licensing authority before the end of this

three months' period for a direction that the provisions should be excluded from applying to a particular licence or certificate or should apply subject to modifications.
We have considered this matter further and agree that it would be right to amend the Bill in this way. Amendment No. 57, adding a new subsection (8), accordingly provides that where an application is made under subsection (6) for a direction excluding the new standard provisions from incorporation in the licence, or for modifying them, and the application is refused or not fully granted, the altered standard provisions are not to apply until the application has been decided; and if, later, the decision is challenged in the High Court under Clause 98, they are not to apply till the application has been "finally disposed of". Clause 27(7) uses this expression to cover various dates in relation to licences of right in comparable circumstances. This provision is applied for the purposes of the new subsection.
The other three Amendments make further improvements in Clause 41(6).
The first two Amendments have the effect of making it clear that an application under subsection (6) can be made at any time after the relevant regulations are made and before the end of three months from the date when they come into operation; that is, when the regulations are made, the applicant need not wait until they come into operation before making his application.
The third Amendment introduces further flexibility by giving the licensing authority discretion to include in its direction a provision postponing the date from which the amended standard provisions are to apply. Such a postponement would be included where the holder of the licence or certificate in his application demonstrates that a further period is necessary before he can comply with the new conditions.

Mr. Dean: I merely rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting in a more satisfactory way the points made in the Amendments which I moved in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 55, in page 37, line 11, leave out' the relevant regulations' and insert 'they'.

No. 56, in page 37, line 23, at end insert:
'with or without provision postponing the date as from which they are to be deemed to be so incorporated'.

No. 57, in page 37, line 37, at end insert:
(8) Without prejudice to any direction given under subsection (6) of this section, where such an application is made—

(a) the operative standard provision shall not be deemed to be incorporated in the licence or certificate to which the application relates before the licensing authority have made a decision on that application, and
(b) if an application under section 98 of this Act is made with respect to that decision, those provisions shall not be deemed to have been or to be so incorporated before the application under subsection (6) of this section has been finally disposed of;

and so much of subsection (7) of section 27 of this Act as relates to the time when an application is to be taken to be finally disposed of shall have effect for the purposes of this subsection as it has effect for the purposes of that section.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 37, line 37, at end insert:
(8) The powers conferred on the licensing authority by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act to vary the provisions of a licence or certificate shall be exercisable with respect to any provisions which, in accordance

with this section, are incorporated or deemed to be incorporated in a licence or certificate.
Like Amendment No. 57, the last of the group we have just been discussing, this Amendment also proposes a new subsection (8) to Clause 41, but it has a quite different purpose.
The Bill enables applications to be made by the licence holders under Clause 30 for variations of a current licence, and under Clause 28 the licensing authority can initiate the procedure for a variation. But I am advised that, as the Bill stands at present, these powers to vary would not extend to the variation of a condition which was a standard provision prescribed by regulations under Clause 41 and deemed by that Clause to be incorporated in the licence.
This Amendment, therefore, makes express provision for such standard provisions to be varied by the licensing authority when exercising powers under Clause 28 or Clause 30 in relation to particular licences.

Amendment agreed to.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NURSES AND MIDWIVES (PAY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. loan L. Evans.]

10.33 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The House will recall that on 29th June, 1967, the National Board for Prices and Incomes was asked by the Government to examine the pay structure and the levels of remuneration and related conditions of service of nurses and midwives covered by the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council, with particular reference to the current claims then having been submitted by the staff side.
As the House knows, the Board's Report was published as Report No. 60 in March this year. That Report covers a very wide field ranging from the recruitment of nurses, their training, wastage rates, shortages, management problems, local authority nursing services, and the pay claim, to mention only a few.
I want to address my remarks in large measure to the pay recommendations, the Government's response to those recommendations, and the reaction of the profession. It is, of course, impossible to isolate the pay of nurses from all the other problems connected with nursing which I have mentioned, and I shall therefore content myself with asking a few questions on these other matters before passing on to the question of remuneration.
The first one is a relatively minor point which is mentioned in the Report— but it is a not unimportant one—concerning the entry age of a girl into the profession. The Board recommended that the entry age should be lowered in Scotland from 17½ to 17, with a consequential review of pre-nursing courses, and I should be glad if the Minister would comment on that as well as on the other propositions contained in paragraph 160 of the Report on various aspects of the training problem.
I pass speedily to the question of wastage rates, particularly among student nurses. The Minister may not remember that on 15th December, 1965, I asked a

Question of the Secretary of State on this very point. His reply showed that more than one in five student nurses withdrew before completion of training, but the significant fact was that only a small proportion of that number, about one-eighth—I think the figure was 12·2 per cent.—gave marriage as the reason for giving up training. In other words, marriage was the cause of a relatively few students leaving. Has any attempt been made since then to ascertain the reasons why the other girls gave up their training, and, if the Government have made investigations, what steps have been taken to remove or diminish those causes?
For instance, to what extent do these student nurses leave because of resentment against petty restrictions, because of unreasonable measures of discipline, because they are treated as children one minute and as adults the next, and perhaps put in charge of a ward? In December, 1965, and January, 1966, I received many letters from these girls, and it was clear that that kind of complaint was far too common for our comfort.
Tempting as it may be to go into those problems, I want to concentrate the rest of my remarks on the pay recommendations. Let me say at the outset that I agree entirely with the view of the staff side that nurses pay is seriously out of line with pay for similar work, that a nurse gets insufficient reward for any added responsibility that she may take on, and thirdly that she has too little incentive to seek or to take promotion. It was in that context that the staff side made special claims for certain grades, for example, ward sisters, staff nurses, tutorial staff, and matrons, and I should like to examine how the proposed increases measure up to what seem to me to be a reasonable demand by the staff side.
Paragraph 138 of the Report contains the overall recommendations. I need not enumerate them as the Minister is well acquainted with them. In the period between October, 1967, and March, 1970, there are varying increases from 9 per cent. to 14 per cent., with an overall backdated increase of 4 per cent. to 1st October, 1967, to be paid immediately, and the balance to be paid on 1st January 1969.
Let us examine what that means to two of the grades which I mentioned, the staff nurse and the ward sister. To the staff nurse, the first instalment of 4 per cent. means 12s. 1d. gross increase per week. After deduction for board and lodgings, her net weekly increase will be 8s. 7d. Those figures were given in answer to a Question on 12th June, and are based on the means of the salary scales. The comparable increases for a ward sister are 16s. 2d. gross and 11s. l1d. net. A student nurse in her third year of training will receive a net weekly increase of 4s. 3d., or a little over a penny an hour.
Before I become churlish, I would commend the increases recommended for those in psychiatric nursing and the introduction of an allowance for those nursing geriatrics and the chronic sick. No one will begrudge a penny of that and the Government are to be congratulated on, I hope, accepting that recommendation forthwith. I am also delighted that overtime will be paid for Saturday afternoon, Sunday and night work. I recall very well, during a previous Administration, that the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), when I put this question to him, said, in effect, "The nurses would much prefer the status symbol of being in a profession to being paid squalid overtime rates". This will now be rectified, and not before time. I should be glad to know the total cost of the initial 4 per cent. increase and the total annual cost of the full award.
I turn now to one or two of the grievances expressed to me; I have a family interest in this which I should perhaps declare. The first is on board and lodgings. I realise that the Government will lean heavily on the side of the Board's recommendations, and it may be argued that these board and lodgings increases are justifiable. But, justifiable or not, the nurses feel a very strong sense of grievance that, whenever they manage to get an increase in their salaries, a large part of it is automatically and simultaneously taken away by an increase in board and lodgings charges.
All Governments reply that these services are heavily subsidised, but—perhaps I have not been inquisitive enough—I have never been able to find out how much they are subsidised and what it

would cost the Health Service if the whole cost were borne by the Exchequer, in other words, if the nurses, who are, in most cases, compelled to live in the hospitals, got those services as a necessary part of the job and did not have to find the cost from their salaries.
The second point of grievance was not represented to me, but I read about it in an article in the Scottish Daily Mail, by Mary Cavanagh on 11th June, which quoted some harsh words used by Miss Elizabeth McLaren, secretary of the Royal College of Nursing in Scotland. She pointed to certain anomalies in the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board, for instance a three-year trained staff registered nurse earns at her maximum £25 a year less than the two-year trained senior enrolled nurse. In other words, the more highly qualified nurse gets less than the less qualified.
Again, she quotes the case of a night sister in charge of a ward who will earn, with her extra payments, more than the superintendent who is in charge of the whole hospital when the matron is off duty.
I presume it will be for the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council to iron out such anomalies as that if they exist. But I would ask my hon. Friend whether they will be allowed to do that if in so doing they go beyond the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board.
I want to say this in conclusion. I suppose that in the context of the present economic climate it might be supposed that this was as generous an award as could be expected. Certainly it makes a welcome and favourable contrast to the behaviour of the previous Conservative Government, when nurses' pay was one of the first to be frozen. I remember attending big nurses' meetings and rallies up and down the country when that happened. But let not the Government preen themselves too much. It is my firm belief, and one which I have held for a very long time, that as a nation, as a community, we have been guilty for as long as I can remember of gross exploitation of what I think is the most dedicated profession in the world.
Maybe if our nurses emulated the women of Fords and came out on strike, they might extract from the community higher and juster rewards, and maybe because we as a community play on the


certain knowledge that they will not do that, that is the reason why they are where they are.
So I say to the Government in conclusion, "Thanks very much for such generosity as you have been able to distribute on this occasion". But we must insist, as I certainly do, that if we are to maintain, let alone increase, existing standards of nursing care we must be prepared to pay much more for it than we shall be doing even after the implementation of all the proposals in the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board.

10.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is an obligation on all of us who have responsibilities in this matter to see that our nursing staffs are adequately paid, and I want to say a good deal about the question of payment, and I hope to answer the points that my hon. Friend has raised, a little later.
If I might put my remarks in the same order as he has put his, perhaps I could say something about the two additional points he raised at the very beginning of his remarks. On the first question about the entry age and the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board, I think we should make it clear that the recommendations of the Board have been accepted by the Government so far as pay is concerned, but the same consideration does not necessarily apply to other matters, such as training, entry age and so on, which the Board covered in its Report.
Of course all the matters which the Board recommended on are, in one way or another, under consideration, but it is the question of pay that was accepted by the Government very quickly after the Board had reported. But the question of entry age, in any case, is not a matter for the Government but for the General Nursing Council for Scotland, which is, of course, an independent body and not a Government Department. No doubt it will be considering what the Board said about this recommendation and the implications of it in the context in which the recommendation was made. However, my hon. Friend will accept that I cannot make

a pronouncement on this matter because the question of the age of entry and other aspects of the training arrangements are subjects for the General Nursing Council and not for the Government.
I agree with my hon. Friend that wastage is an extremely serious problem. The figures are, if anything, rather worse than he quoted. The wastage rate is probably in the region of 30 per cent., which means that for every 100 nurses entering training, only 70 eventually successfully complete their courses. This is, therefore, an extremely serious problem.
I do not think that there is a simple answer to this problem. There is certainly no particular prescription for it which could guarantee success. Much of this is concerned with the whole organisation of nurse training, and some of the recommendations of the Report are in line with what is happening in Scotland. Indeed, the recommendation that there should be larger group nurse training schools is said by the Report to be a matter on which Scotland has gone further than England. That process will continue. It is in the general organisation of training that, more than anything else, the final answer to this question of wastage lies.
I would not suggest that the sort of matters to which my hon. Friend drew attention—such as the general attitude of those in authority towards student nurses —are not relevant considerations. They are relevant and if my hon. Friend studies Appendix III of the Report and the circular which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health sent out in September, 1967, he will see that a number of the points drawn to the attention of those responsible for nurse training are designed to improve the efficiency of the training and the attractiveness of it from the personal and professional point of view.
My hon. Friend explained the background to the recommendation on pay and I need not go over that ground. He asked what the total cost of the pay recommendations would be, when fully implemented. That figure is quoted in paragraph 143 of the Report—that is, if one adds up the various components in the recommendations—as being £40·9 million on an existing salary bill of £201 million, which represents a total increase of about 20 per cent.
When one considers the details, it is possible, as the nursing organisations have done, to point out individual anomalies. It should be borne in mind, however, that this matter should be set in the context of what amounts to a substantial increase. It is somewhat misleading to look at this award simply in the context of what has been done by way of the 4 per cent. increase, which has been backdated to 1st October, 1967, because that is only a part—in some respects a small part—of the total recommendations of the P.I.B. Report. That increase has been made effective as from 1st October, 1967. At the same time there have been increases in the board and lodging charges. It has always been inherent in the system that when increases in salary are given equivalent increases are made in the board and lodging charges. This was taken into account by the Board in making its recommendations.
The Board has made recommendations which would change the basis upon which these charges are made to student nurses. That is still negotiable. It is not something which operates from 1st October, 1967. At the same time, certain other increases have already been agreed. For example, the increase in the lead for nurses in psychiatric hospitals from £50 to £100 has been made effective from 1st April, 1968. That represents by itself for those concerned a substantial percentage increase. A similar allowance of £100 has been introduced for nursing staff in hospitals or units for geriatric assessment, long-stay geriatric, and/or the young chronic sick. This allowance is specifically designed, as is the mental hospital lead generally, to add to the number and quality of recruits to this field of nursing, particularly in areas where there are special difficulties in recruitment and where there are also very often particular strains and tensions involved in the work concerned. That recommendation has already been made effective as from 1st April. There is also the question of special duty allowances for working at night, on Sundays and on Saturday afternoons. These, again, are under consideration at present.
I want to make a point about what my hon. Friend said as to the anomaly which might arise between night superintendents and night sisters. One important point

about the special duty allowances is that the Board has recommended that they be extended to ward sisters. Although an anomaly can possibly arise between, say, a night ward sister and a night superintendent, there have already been anomalies between staff nurses, who were eligible for these special duty allowances, and ward sisters, who were not. I am not trying to justify an anomaly. I am merely pointing out that, taken as a whole, the extension of these allowances to ward sisters, who are the basic career grade in the service, is a considerable step forward.
It has not been possible yet to get final agreement on this matter. Both sides of the Whitley Council have now referred this back to the N.B.P.I., indicating the reasons why they have not been able to reach an agreement on this. The difficulty is that, although the recommendations taken as a whole represent a step forward, for particular nurses they can, because of the peculiarities of the system, actually represent something which is not quite as favourable as what they have at present. I hope very much that this particular question can be settled between the Whitley Council and the Board, but my hon. Friend will recognise that it is not possible for me in these circumstances to make any pronouncement about it.
A number of other things have already been done. For example, the leave entitlement for certain grades of local authority nursing and midwifery staff has been approved with effect from 1st April, 1968. There is an extension of overtime payments in psychiatric hospitals which will be effective from 1st October, 1968. The existing overtime provisions in psychiatric hospitals, which at present are limited to student and pupil nurses and nursing assistants, are to be extended up to ward sister level. Adding to this the increases in lead for mental hospital staff, it will be seen that for many nurses the increases proposed are quite considerable.
A number of other matters are still being discussed in the Whitley context, for example, a general further salary increase which is recommended for implementation on 1st January, 1969, and which will be done by introducing scales on the basis of the structure recommended by the Salmon Committee. I


am not able to comment on the details, but these negotiations are going ahead.
My hon. Friend drew attention to another apparent anomaly between the recommendations concerning enrolled nurses and those concerning staff nurses. This is still subject to negotiation in the Whitley Council and I am not, therefore, able to make a final statement on that. It would be quite improper.
The background is that the senior enrolled nurses grade represents the top of the career structure, whereas the staff nurse grade is the basic grade for registered nurses. So the two are not comparable. The number of enrolled nurses who become senior enrolled nurses is still comparatively small and there is quite a difference between the time at which the registered nurse, as a staff nurse, reaches the maximum, and the time at which the senior enrolled nurse would reach the maximum to which my hon. Friend drew attention. It is not for

me to argue for or against the Board's recommendation. This is still with the Whitley Council and the apparent anomaly to which my hon. Friend drew attention will be considered.
There are a number of other questions because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, this is a complicated Report with wide-ranging implications and I hope he will accept that I have tried to explain its total effect. I hope that one will not judge it on the particular implication of the 4 per cent. increase from 1st October, 1967, without taking account of the very substantial—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.